





DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
DURHAM, N.C. 

















Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/johnslidellO2sear 





MANHOOD 


EARLY 


IN 


JOHN SLIDELL 


BY 
LOUIS MARTIN SEARS 


Professor of History in Purdue University 


DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 
1925 


COPYRIGHT 1925 
DUKE UNIVERSITY 


THE PRESSES OF 
THE SEEMAN PRINTERY INCORPORATED 
DURHAM, N. C. 


TO THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER 
GEORGE HOSMER SEARS 


“My motto has always been to accept an instal- 
ment of reform which may be obtained rather 
than struggle for something more perfect but un- 
attainable for the moment.” 


From a letter of John Slidell to George 
Henry, Esq., June 11, 1860, in the Auto- 
graph Collection of The Historical Society 
of Pennsylvania, (Bequest of Arthur G. 
Coffin). 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER I: EARLY YEARS 

CHAPTER II: IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
CHAPTER III: THE MISSION TO MEXICO 

CHAPTER IV: PROGRESS 

CHAPTER A IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 
CHAPTER VI: THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 
CHAPTER VII: SECESSION 

CHAPTER VIII: AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 
CHAPTER IX: CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 


INDEX 


PORTRAITS OF SLIDELL 


IN EARLY MANHOOD 
WHEN HE ENTERED POLITICS 


IN MORE MATURE YEARS 


1 0 i; 1 Bs, 3 


24 
48 
74 

103 

138 

169, 

186 

229 

241 


243 


frontispiece 
facing 24 


facing 186 





INTRODUCTION 


T is said of Thiers that he aspired to but one 

line in world history. A witty reviewer con- 
gratulates him that in Wells’ Outline he has failed 
of even that. The case of John Slidell in Amer- 
ican history seems to offer a parallel. He has 
made the line. Few, one may venture to say, are 
ignorant of his part in the Trent Affair. Asa 
name, he lives, but as little more than that. It is 
among the ironies of American history that one 
of its chief makers during a most critical period 
should have sunk so completely into oblivion. 
Few men of his importance in the ante-bellum 
South but have their biography. Toombs and 
Cobb, Yancey and Mason, Wise and Hunter, 
Walker and Benjamin, Stephens and Rhett,’ not 
to mention Davis and the military heroes of the 
Confederacy, each has his “Life,” short or long 
as the materials have been available. Almost 
alone of the men who really determined the course ~ 
and fate of Secession Slidell remains neglected. 

Apparently it was his own wish. No body of 
Slidell papers as such is known to exist. The late 
Charles Francis Adams is quoted for the state- 


*His biography by Dr. Laura A. White of the University of 
Wyoming is still in manuscript. 


2 JOHN SLIDELL 


ment that Slidell destroyed as far as possible the 
records out of which his biography might have 
been constructed.?, And now, more than one hun- 
dred and thirty years after his birth, in the absence 
of personal materials, it is impossible to relate the 
events of his youth, even of his younger manhood, 
save only in the most perfunctory manner. His 
riper years as well would have been obscured by 
the mists of time had it not been that from about 
1840 until the close of the Civil War he was a 
national figure. As such he has a part in the 
public records which no act or wish of his own 
could altogether obliterate, though even here a 
biographer would welcome more of the personal 
touch, best revealed in familiar correspondence. 
It is, therefore, a source of extreme congratula- 
tion that two collections of Slidell letters do actu- 
ally supplement the Congressional Records. One 
is a series of approximately one hundred and fifty 
letters written by Slidell to his close personal and 
political friend, James Buchanan, in the years be- 
tween 1844 and 1861. The other is a series of 
about an equal number directed to his diplomatic 
co-worker, James M. Mason, who represented the 
Confederacy at London as did Slidell at Paris. 
It is now more than ten years since the present 
writer became interested in Slidell. An investiga- 
tion of Slidell’s mission to Mexico aroused his 
curiosity concerning a figure so able yet so elusive. 


® Made in conversation with Professor William E. Dodd. 


INTRODUCTION 3 


But at that time the Mason papers were not yet 
available, and the rich possibilities in the Buch- 
anan papers did not occur to him. Subsequent 
utilization of both these collections and the stimu- 
lus of a most friendly correspondence with Mr. 
Alfred Slidell, until the latter’s death in 1920, and 
more recently with his sister, Marie Rosine Sli- 
dell, Comtesse de St. Roman, re-awakened in the 
author the determination to outline as best he 
might the career of Slidell. Accordingly, the 
work which follows is presented with regret for 
the brief treatment of the early years and the 
closing ones, but with confidence that, incomplete 
though it be, any treatment of Slidell should prove 
a welcome supplement to the record of the Old 
South and of Secession. 

I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to the 
editors of The American Historical Review, and 
The South Atlantic Quarterly for permission to 
reproduce material appearing originally under 
their auspices. The chapter on Slidell’s Mission 
to Mexico is essentially the same as that in The 
South Atlantic Quarterly for January, 1913. The 
correspondence of Slidell and Buchanan, consti- 
tuting an article in The American Historical Re- 
view for July, 1922, is here distributed through 
three chapters. A Confederate Diplomat at the 
Court of Napoleon III is only slightly altered 
from the original as it appeared in The American 
Historical Review for January, 1921. I desire 


4 JOHN SLIDELL 


also to express my heartfelt thanks to Professor 
William T. Laprade of Duke University for the 
friendly care which he has shown in guiding the 
manuscript through the press. 

To Madame la Comtesse de St. Roman, for- 
merly Marie Rosine Slidell, this work owes much. 
Her kindness in furnishing data concerning the 
more domestic life of her father has been unfail- 
ing. In her correspondence with the author she 
has preserved the literary tradition so evident in 
the letters of her father, whose pen was indeed 
facile. JI am indebted to her also for the two 
portraits of her father in his earlier years. The 
Century Company have kindly permitted me to 
reproduce the more mature portrait from Nicolay 
and Hay’s Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

It is regretted that the present study went to 
press too early to take advantage of the recent 
contribution of Professor E. D. Adams in his 
Great Britain and the American Civil War to our 
knowledge of the Civil War. The allusions to 
Slidell in John Bigelow’s Retrospections of An 
Active Life might with propriety have received 
more detailed notice. But it was decided to relate 
Slidell’s Parisian efforts in his own language 
rather than in that of his detractors. The same 
observation might be made of Bigelow’s France 
and the Confederate Navy. 


CHAPTER] 


EARLY YEARS 


HE date of Slidell’s birth is not a matter of 

complete certainty; it is commonly given as 
1793, in the city of New York. The family was 
well situated, Slidell’s father being one of the 
wealthier merchants of his time, and Slidell lacked 
none of the advantages of education and rearing. 
If no other evidence for this were in existence, 
proof would appear in surviving specimens of 
Slidell’s correspondence, for self-made men, how- 
ever skilful in their craftsmanship, are betrayed 
by their pens into crudities of expression of which 
their brethren who owe somewhat to God and 
family are seldom guilty. The condition of the 
family is not left entirely to conjecture, however, 
for it appears that when Lieutenant Matthew C. 
Perry, afterward Commodore Perry of Japanese 
fame, married in 1814 the younger sister of Sli- 
dell, the bride’s father was in position to place his 
son-in-law in command of a ship bound for Hol- 
land, a furlough for which was refused at the 
navy department on the ground of an impending 
war with Algiers.’ 


* William Elliot Griffis. Matthew Calbraith Perry, p. 47. 


6 JOHN SLIDELL 


The wedding of his sister Jane affords one 
more clew to the home environment of John. It 
was solemnized at the family residence by the 
Reverend Nathaniel Bowen, afterwards Bishop, 
according to the ritual of the Episcopal Church,? 
and thus almost completely sets at rest the accu- 
sation at one time levelled against Slidell that he, 
like his friend Judah P. Benjamin, was of Jewish 
origin.* This same marriage was later to prove 
of political significance to Slidell and to the coun- 
try because of the four sons and six daughters 
born of the union; Caroline, in particular, through 
her marriage with August Belmont, was to be- 
come a great figure in society and her husband 
one of the mainsprings of John’s political ma- 
chine.‘ 

Of Slidell’s youth the additional fact is re- 
corded, quite unadorned, that he graduated from 
Columbia College in 1810 at the early, but for 
those times not astonishing, age of seventeen. 
May one infer that the son of a merchant prince, 
in times when commerce was tied in port—for 
Slidell must presumably have been a sophomore 
in 1808, the disastrous year of embargo—was in 
the nature of things a Federalist and an opponent 
of Jefferson and all his works? To do so would 


*Ibid., p. 45. The bride’s father was a vestryman of Grace 
Episcopal Church in New York City at the time of its incor- 
poration in 1809, : 

* Pierce Butler, Judah P. Benjamin, p. 165, quoting from the 
New Orleans Daily True Delta. 

‘Griffis, Matthew Calbraith Perry, p. 431. 


EARLY YEARS 7 


be to place a severe strain upon historical license. 
The philosophy of Slidell’s maturer years was so 
unqualifiedly Jeffersonian that his conversion, if 
one prefers to accept that hypothesis, must have 
been more startling than that of John Quincy 
Adams, whose defection from the Federalists may 
possibly have been known to the young gentlemen 
of Columbia, on the supposition, that is, that they 
were more alert to current events than are their 
successors, the collegians of to-day. Besides, it 
might be misleading to draw such an inference in 
view of the fact that many merchants of the type 
of the elder Slidell took a sufficiently broad view 
of politics and world events to commend the ad- 
ministration on patriotic grounds for what was 
impoverishing them personally. This was un- 
questionably true of Gray, of Salem, the greatest 
shipmaster of the time, and may, conjecturably, 
have been true of Slidell as well. Certainly John 
Slidell was coming to an age of political self-con- 
sciousness at a time when the Virginia dynasty 
controlled the presidency and the Clintons con- 
trolled New York, and, whether he was or was 
not a Republican, he was in a position to hear 
preached the true milk of the word. 

The years following the War of 1812 witnessed 
an extraordinary migration toward the western 
country. State after state applied for admission 
to the Union, and America entered upon a career 
of wheat and cotton production whereby she was 


8 JOHN SLIDELL 


soon to feed and clothe the world. Young men in 
particular, still free lances and foot-loose, saw 
their way to fortune as pioneers in new lands. 
The characteristic direction for New Englanders 
and New Yorkers was to move due westward 
through northern Ohio, southern Michigan, and, 
in the 1830’s, into northern Illinois and from there 
north and northwest into Wisconsin and Minne- 
sota. For men of the border slave states, Mary- 
land and Virginia, the course lay southwestward 
towards Tennessee and the Gulf, while for the 
South Atlantic states, as for New York, the path 
of empire was due westward. Slidell, therefore, 
was scarcely following the usual trail when, in 
1819, his father having meanwhile failed in busi- 
ness and his own plans for a diplomatic career 
having been thereby frustrated,’ instead of accom- 
panying others of his stock and section into the 
Northwest, he chose New Orleans for his goal. 
But, having made his bed, he lay in it, and from 
his settlement there until the advent of Secession 
he had what one might call the ardor of the con- 
vert. No one could have been more loyally South- 
ern. The motto Uli bene ibi patria has seldom 
found a more conscientious exponent. In Louisi- 
ana Slidell prospered, and to her he gave of his 
best. 


"Letter of Madame la Comtesse de St. Roman to the author, 
August 31, 1922. 


EARLY YEARS 9 


For life in a commercial city like New Orleans - 
Slidell was peculiarly equipped, having served, 
following his graduation at Columbia, an ap- 
prenticeship in commerce, presumably with his 
father. In addition he studied law. The combi- 
nation was effective, for it was in maritime law 
that he was to make his name at the bar. The 
Code Napoléon, which constituted Louisiana’s 
substitute for the common law of other states, may 
have required some further time to master, but 
even so, Slidell was practicing before the bar of the 
State Supreme Court as early as the March term 
of 1827, when he won a case on the question of 
appointing a curator in an estate upon which his 
client had a lien.® From this time on Slidell’s ap- 
pearances before the court were frequent, though 
the number of his defeats in early sessions indi- 
cates, perhaps, that, as a young lawyer new to 
the country, some of his early commissions were 
for lost causes of which his championship was 
pro forma. 

An interesting case in which Slidell appeared 
for the plaintiff and lost involved the question of 
marine insurance. A ship sailing between New 
Orleans and Hamburg, in order to avoid the dan- 
gers of a lee shore, was obliged to carry a heavy 
press of sail. The danger having been averted, 
immediately on arrival in port the captain dis- 
covered that the vessel leaked badly from strains 


*Louisiana Reports, Book 4. 5 Martin’s Reports, (N. S.) 505. 


10 JOHN SLIDELL 


induced by the excessive canvas. Slidell in this 
case demonstrated that ““by the lex mercatoria of 
the continent of Europe, such an injury as this 
furnishes a claim for general average.” That is 
to say, the cargo may be assessed for a portion of 
the costs. For this he cited numerous authorities. 
Marine insurance provides for such casualties. 
And the plaintiff sued for $770 from the insuring 
company. The court, however, was of the opin- 
ion that the insurance contract was a Louisiana 
instrument, subject to United States and Louisi- 
ana law, which was the reverse of European law 
in this respect. “With us, all casual and inevitable 
damage and loss, as distinguished from that 
which is purposely incurred, is a subject of par- 
ticular, not general average.” The principle was 
of sufficient interest, however, to elicit from the 
court an elaborate defence of its position. The 
attorney for the defendant, who carried off the 
honors of victory, was Eustis, an interesting as- 
sociation of names, suggestive in 1861 of the 
Confederate commissioner and his secretary.’ 

In this same year of 1828, Slidell effected the 
union between law and politics which in America 
is so characteristic. He struck boldly out for a 
seat in Congress, taking the stump for Jackson as 
well as for himself. Jackson carried the nation; 


‘Louisiana Reports, Book 5. 6 Martin’s Reports (N. S.) 629- 
634. Shiff v. Louisiana State Insurance Company, April 1828, 


EARLY YEARS 11 


not so Slidell his constituency. But defeat brought 
its own victory, for Jackson appointed him in 1829 }: 
to be United States district attorney at New Or- 
leans, a recognition which attached Slidell to the 
General and his cause. He resigned the office, 
however, after about one year’s tenure. 

Slidell, who was later to be so great a figure in 
the Democratic party, did not long retain the good 
will of its earlier leaders. Neither Van Buren nor 
Jackson felt much confidence in the rising leader 
from Louisiana. Thus, in August, 1833, Van 
Buren informed the President that Slidell was at 
Saratoga, with him, “under very considerable ex- 
citement, but preferring to behave well,” over his 
removal from Federal office. Van Buren had in- 
formed him that an acknowledgment of injustice 
to him by the President was out of the question 
and that revenge upon the new incumbent must 
not be contemplated. Van Buren mollified him by 
suggestions of other appointments, assuring him 
that in his opinion Jackson was not prejudiced 
against him. But he warned Slidell that any at- 
tempt to play politics against Jackson in Louisiana 
would weigh not a feather in the President’s de- 
cision. Slidell seems then rather to have hedged, 
boasting that his business in New Orleans was 
worth $10,000 a year (1833) and that nothing 
could induce him to abandon it for office under the 
government, “but that he would not conceal from 
me, that the offer of any place of sufficient re- 


12 JOHN SLIDELL 


spectability to wipe away the effect of what had 
been done,—such as a Chargés, would be very 
grateful to his feelings.’’® 

That the party chieftains at this period weighed 
Slidell and found him wanting would appear also 
from a letter of Jackson to Van Buren in which 
Jackson accepts the views of Slidell’s enemies in 
New Orleans and scouts the trustworthiness of 
Slidell’s recommendations on patronage. “Mr. 
Gordon [collector of New Orleans] is now here. 
From testimonials submitted mr. Slidel has im- 
posed upon the Secretary of the Treasury and 
myself in his recommendation of an appraiser for 
the Port of N. Orleans—the man had been sus- 
pended as an inspector for intemperence twice and 
then permitted to resign. This is charged to be in 
the knowledge of mr. Slidel—it is stated further 
by mr. Gordon that Slidel, Nicholson and Grimes 
are all calhoun men and nullifiers. Therefore it 
is that they are in favor of Genl. Overton, and he 
asserts that they all three are your and my bitter 
opposers at all their elections. Gordon says the 
friends of the administration will send Mr. Wal- 
ker to the Senate, that Genl. Overton cannot be 
elected.” Lest the foregoing should not have been 
sufficiently clear to so astute a politician as Van 
Buren, the President goes on to make the warning 
more specific. “Knowing that you had a favor- 


*Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress. Van Buren to Jack- 
son, Saratoga Springs, Aug. 6, 1833. 


EARLY YEARS 13 


able oppinion of mr. Slidel as well as myself this 
letter is written to put you on your guard of this 
man, that you may not break your shins over 
stools not in your way, and that you may be 
guarded in any communications you may happen 
to make with him.’® If Slidell had any hint of 
this attitude toward him at Washington, it did. 
not deter him in 1834 from presenting himself as 
a candidate for the United States senate. Louisi-. 
ana, however, thought otherwise. In analyzing 
the causes of his defeat, Slidell may have assigned 
the responsibility to his divided interests. At any 
rate, he disposed in the following year of much of 
his law practice and devoted himself less inter- 
ruptedly to politics. 

In 1835, at the age of forty-two, Slidell further 
cemented his ties with Louisiana by a marriage 
into one of the proud French creole families of 
the state.*° Mathilde Deslonde, the future Mrs. 
Slidell, had first come into relation with her hus- 
band’s family when, as a young girl sent away to 
school in New York, she formed a friendship for 
her school-mate, a younger sister of Slidell. I 


®°Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress. Jackson to Van 
Buren, Washington, Nov. 19, 1833. For both of the preceding 
teins I am indebted to Professor John Spencer Bassett of Smith 

ollege. 

” After the battle of New Orleans, the bride’s mother had been 
selected to crown General Jackson with laurel leaves. On this 
occasion she met her future busband—a member of the General’s 
staff—who had brought his slaves to aid in making the ramparts 
of cotton bales. Mme. la Comtesse de St. Roman to the author, 
March 27, 1925. 


14 JOHN SLIDELL 


quote from the words of her daughter. “My 
mother was profoundly religious, austere towards 
herself, indulgent to others. 

“Note that she was a Catholic, being a full 
blooded French woman as to race, a creole, sent 
to New York at the age of fifteen to learn English 
at the celebrated school kept by Madame Chéga- 
ray, where she met precisely Julia Slidell, her 
future husband’s youngest sister, come there to 
acquire the French language.” 

One may conjecture that the girlhood friend- 
ship thus begun led to visits of each to the home 
of the other, and thus, in a most natural way, to 
the union which resulted. That it was happy, 
even beyond most, is apparent from the recollec- 
tions of the children. Speaking of her father, the 
Comtesse de St. Roman remarks that “Impas- 
sioned, violent in politics, at home he was the 
gentlest of the gentle, utterly unselfish, tenderness 
itself to my mother, to us children. He was about 
of the same age as his mother-in-law, and he was 
all their lives through, as it were, the most affec- 
tionate of brothers towards her, and yet the most 
respectful of sons. On her side her tact was so 
genuine, so delicate, that she was both maternal 
and fraternal in her manner towards him.” 

Mrs. Slidell found time to be a careful mother 
and yet to shine socially. Painting, also, in which 
she was proficient, she did not neglect, and the 
plantation house at Belle-Point, on the banks of 


EARLY YEARS 15 


the Mississippi near New Orleans, was enriched 
by her brush. A fine portrait of her by Healy is 
in the possession of her daughter at Paris, the cos- 
tuming and background having been determined 
by the sitter. Commodore Perry, on his return 
from Japan, had brought for Mrs. Slidell an im- 
mense China vase, a cashmere shawl from India, 
and “the very first arum that had ever been seen 
in Washington.” Grouping these gifts about her- 
self, “in her wardrobe she chose a black velvet ball 
dress, the bodice with basque trimmed around the 
shoulders and the hips with Marabout feathers of 
their natural tint and a garland of red velvet 
geraniums.’’*? 

In 1836 Slidell again tried for the senate, only 
to be again defeated. Consolation might be 
gleaned, however, from the circumstance that 
Slidell controlled the Democracy, his successful 
opponent having carried off the honors by votes 
obtained from the enemy. Slidell’s account, as 
rendered to Van Buren, indicates also a new 
cordiality toward the national chieftains. 


My dear Sir, 

As I am desirous that you and our political friends may 
not misapprehend the nature of the contest between Mr. 
Morton and myself at the late senatorial election, I send 
you herewith a number of the Bee of this day, which 
gives a fair statement of it. The Bee is the State paper 
and the leading journal of our party in this state,—of the 


pentane la Comtesse de St. Roman to the author. Feb. 17, 


16 JOHN SLIDELL 


28 votes given to me, 21 were those of our own party, 7 
of the opposition—Mr. Morton on the first ballot had 13 
votes from our political friends and 18 of the opposition. 
I assure you that among the motives of regret for my 
disappointment, that of not having the pleasure of seeing 
you on the 4th of March is not the least prominent. 

I am very respectfully and truly, 

Your friend and servant, 
John Slidell. 
To Honl. Martin Van Buren.12 


A subsequent letter to Van Buren throws light 
upon Slidell’s position in the party in 1839 and 
also upon his relations with the Gordons, a family 
once able to compromise Slidell in the esteem of 
Jackson but now themselves discredited. 


New Orleans, 20 April, 1839. 
Dear Sir, 


The office of Collector of the Customs for the District 
of Mississippi, being about to be vacated by the resigna- 
tion of Mr. Breedlove, the importance of the appointment 
which you will be called upon to make emboldens me to 
make some suggestions respecting the nomination of his 
successor. There will doubtless be many applicants for 
the situation but from the peculiar qualifications which it 
requires, the range of choice will necessarily be limited. 
The merchants of this place, with but very rare exceptions, 
are opposed to your administration, and among the few 
who support it, I know not one who can be considered as 
in any way qualified for the place. In these days of de- 
falcation, no man should be selected who has been ex- 
tensively engaged in speculation or business of any kind 
or who is in the least degree embarrassed in his pecuniary 
affairs. He should be a firm supporter of our political 


*Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Slidell to Van 
Buren, January 1837. 


EARLY YEARS 17 


faith, a man of talents, experience and business habits 
and above all a man of unimpeachable integrity. 

All these qualities are to be found united in an eminent 
degree in Mr. Denis Prieur. This gentleman was for 
many years by successive re-elections mayor of our city 
and enjoys I believe a higher degree of popularity than 
any other individual in Louisiana. He is now absent on 
a very important mission to Europe from our municipal 
authorities (the negotiation of an extensive loan) but he 
will in all probability return before the appointment of 
his successor will become necessary, as Mr. Breedlove’s 
resignation is not to take effect until the 30 June. Should 
Mr. Prieur not return in time or should he not from any 
other cause be appointed, I would beg leave to suggest 
Mr. H. B. Trist,!8 as a popular person to fill the vacancy. 
Mr. Trist is a man of superior talents, educated for the 
bar, possessing a moderate fortune and perfectly unem- 
barrassed. he has a very strong family connection who 
with himself have ever been strenuous supporters of 
democratic principles. He was appointed several years 
since by General Jackson, Surveyor General of the Public 
Lands in this district, but resigned the situation on being 
made cashier of the bank at Donaldsonville, which place 
he now holds. He will, on the contingency of Mr. Prieur 
not being appointed, be strenuously recommended by 
many of your most influential friends in this state. 

I have as yet heard of no other person whose name will 
- probably be presented to you with the exception of that 
of Mr. Martin Gordon Junior. I hope that you will do 
me the justice to believe that what I am about to say is 
not dictated by any vindictive feeling growing out of an 
old feud with his father. My relations with the son have 
ever been those of friendly intercourse and personally I 
have no reproach to make against him, but I feel that so 
much evil might result from an injudicious appointment 
as to make it an imperative duty to give you correct infor- 


* Mr. H. B. Trist was a brother of Nicholas P. Trist, negotiator 
of the Mexican Treaty of 1848. 


18 JOHN SLIDELL 


mation respecting the applicant. The Gordons, father and 
son, supported at the last election in this state, the Whig 
candidates for governor and Congress, Messrs. Roman 
and White. Mr. Prieur was as you may recollect our 
candidate for governor, being defeated by a very small 
majority. The Gordons are now opposed to your admin- 
istration, whatever it may suit their present views to say 
to the contrary. Mr. Gordon Junior was until very 
recently cashier of the Union Bank of Louisiana with a 
salary of eight thousand dollars. this situation he was 
called upon to resign by an unanimous vote of the direc- 
tion, in consequence of a deficiency of fifty thousand 
dollars, which he alleged to have sent to the different 
branches of the bank. The sum was made good by him 
by giving notes at long terms endorsed by his father. I 
speak advisedly when I say that the impression of the 
direction is that the money was never sent to the branches, 
but was made use of by Mr. Gordon for his own purposes, 
doubtless with the intention of eventually replacing it. 
The embarrassments which led to this unfortunate step 
still continue and were there no other objection, I consider 
this an insuperable one. The money of the public would 
not be in safe hands. Believe me with the highest con- 
sideration and respect, 
Your devoted friend and servant, 
John Slidell. 
To His Excellency Martin Van Buren.14 


Slidell’s regard for Van Buren survived the 
President’s defeat, for in March, 1842, on learn- 
ing of Van Buren’s intention to visit the Hermit- 
age, he invited him to stop at New Orleans on his 
way up the river, submitting a reception program 
to Van Buren’s consideration. ‘Your friends 
here of course wish to receive you in the manner 


* Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Slidell to Van 
Buren, New Orleans, April 20, 1839. 


EARLY YEARS 19 


that may be most agreeable to yourself and wish 
to be governed entirely by your views in relation 
to any arrangements to be made for your recep- 
tion. Many of them are anxious to make some 
public party demonstration but they will change 
the idea, if it be considered indiscreet to do so 
under existing circumstances. A few lines ex- 
planatory of your views and wishes will enable us 
to act understandingly. When the proper moment 
arrives you will be brought forward with entire 
unanimity by the democratic party of Louisiana 
as their candidate. I write in great haste, as I 
have only heard today from any authentic source 
of your intended visit. I regretted extremely that 
my limited sojourn at the North on my way to 
Europe, deprived me of the opportunity of seeing 
you > 

His correspondence with Van Buren reveals 
Slidell as a power in local politics, frequently de- 
feated but ever tenacious. But his influence was 
still local. His views were proffered to national 
leaders but chiefly upon local conditions and ap- 
pointments. Real progress toward national posi- 
tion is, however, apparent in the friendship which 
seems to have conquered the prejudice of Van 
Buren, and, it may be, of Jackson also. 

Near the end of Slidell’s career in this private, 
or, at any rate, only semi-public life occurred an 


* Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Slidell to Van Buren, 
New Orleans, March 10, 1842. 


20 JOHN SLIDELL 


incident in which he must have felt the pro- 
foundest interest, namely the court-martial, on a 
charge of murder, of his younger brother, Alex- 
ander Slidell, who had added an uncle’s name of 
Mackenzie and ranked as a commander in the 
United States navy. Alexander was perhaps 
seven years younger than John Slidell. But he, 
too, had made a name for himself. He was favor- 
ably known as the author of lives of John Paul 
Jones and Oliver Hazard Perry, and his dignity 
of bearing, both at the trial and subsequently, 
commanded the respect of thoughtful men. The 
case which brought him to such a pass is one of 
the most painful in American naval annals. In 
September, 1842, Mackenzie was sent on the Brig 
Somers, twelve officers and 108 men, with dis- 
patches for the African coast. It was his misfor- 
tune that one of the twelve officers, a son of Ty- 
ler’s Secretary of War, was Midshipman Philip 
Spencer, whose naval record was already very 
bad. Early on the return voyage, which began 
November 11, Mackenzie was informed, as fate 
would have it, by his brother John’s brother-in- 
law, Adrien Deslonde, of Spencer’s machinations 
to seduce the crew, murder the officers, and raise 
the black flag. The story which follows is in the 
words of Adrien Deslonde’s niece, the Comtesse 
de St. Roman: 


Do you know of the tragedy of the Somers, the man of 
war commanded by my father’s own brother, whom you 


EARLY YEARS 21 


probably do not recognize as such under the name of Mac- 
Kenzie. The Mackenzie clan was a royal family as it 
were, like all Scotch clans, and my ancestor who fled to 
the wilds of North America to save his head from the 
block at the defeat of the last Pretender, was a member of 
it, son of a younger son. The title of the chieftain is the 
Earl of Cromartie. The Mackenzies dying out in New 
York in the person of a bachelor uncle, this one induced 
mine, Alexander Slidell, to become Alexander Mackenzie. 
He commanded the fleet in the Mediterranean and we 
have a superb portrait of him painted by the celebrated 
Goya. 

He sought the head of his family and was received with 
open arms by Lord Cromartie, and kept in the old castle 
as long as his leave allowed. We had a packet of letters 
written from Cromartie Castle. 

This is only a preface to a terrible tragedy. Uncle 
Alexander had on board of the Somers, fortunately, a 
midshipman, descended from French officers of the Royal 
Navy, my mother’s brother Adrien Deslonde, and unfortu- 
nately the son of the Secretary of War, whose name was 
Spencer, if my memory does not betray me. This youth’s 
head was completely turned, poisoned as it were, by the 
literary rage both in prose and verse, for corsairs, for 
pirates: witness Byron, the Red Rover, et cetera. He 
worked hard in secret amongst the crew, of which how- 
ever a feeble majority remained still faithful although 
inclining to waver. Adrien Deslonde’s remonstrances re- 
maining useless, at the peril of his own life, he disclosed 
the plot to my uncle. He at once called a court martial, 
on the case of the ringleader, son though he was of the 
Secretary of War. The verdict was unanimous, and 
execution immediate. I am not sure enough of my 
memory as to the fate of the other culprits. The position 
was a cruel one in the days of sails, but at last the Com- 
mander of the Somers could reach the United States and 
present himself to be courtmartialed. He was acquitted 
by a unanimous verdict, but the strain was too great for 
his heart, and before long, he fell dead from his horse. 


22 JOHN SLIDELL 


His widow, belonging to an important family, the Robin- 
sons, never took off her cap, which remains present to 
my childish memory as the first of its kind I had ever 
seen. The last was on the head of my so witty Aunt Jane 
Slidell, wife of Commodore Calbraith Perry, he of Japan 
fame. 


The trial which is thus so vividly described 
after more than three fourths of a century by the 
niece of the central figure, created an immense 
national sensation at the time. Men like Richard 
Henry Dana and Charles Sumner felt it necessary 
to enlighten public opinion concerning the critical 
plight of a small body of officers on a brig of the 
Somers’ construction in the face of a mutinous 
crew. Dana expanded also on the malicious char- 
acter of Spencer and the manner in which he had 
been previously shielded by higher officers for the 
very grossest breaches of discipline out of defer- 
ence to the influence of his father. Sumner, in 
addition to articles for purely Boston consump- 
tion, also reached the nation through the North 
American Review.**® For this high service Mac- 
kenzie was deeply grateful. And in a letter, to be 
opened only after his death, which occurred in 
1848, he left a message of affection for his friend. 
It is a circumstance not without interest that the 
Slidells should thus first have encountered Charles 
Sumner in the capacity of friend and protector. 

Deplore though one must the dearth of material 
concerning these earlier years of Slidell, it is 

* Vol. 52, p. 512. 


EARLY YEARS 23 


nevertheless apparent that out of New York had 
come a young man of good family and prospects 
to select New Orleans as the field for his best 
efforts, and that between 1819 and 1840 he had 
won a name for himself as a lawyer of the first 
rank and as a politician of probably the third, for 
as yet he was not master in his own state, and his 
relations with the party leaders at Washington 
were equivocal. Marriage, which had come to 
him later than to many, had proved singularly 
felicitous. He was a happy man, and in many 
ways successful, with foundations laid for greater 
success to come. Beyond New Orleans, however, 
save among old family connections in New York 
and Rhode Island, it is not likely that he was 
known. National recognition still lay ahead. 


CHAPTER i 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
1843 TO 1845 


LIDELL’S first venture upon the national 
S scene was as a representative from Louisiana 
in the Twenty-eighth Congress in the troubled 
days of President Tyler’s war with the Whigs. 
The impression which Slidell was to make upon 
, legislation, both in his term as representative and 
subsequently as senator, was that of a keen and 
acute thinker and man of affairs rather than that 
of an orator. His was the role of a modern con- 
gressman in a day when business is a matter of 
committees. He was in no sense a candidate for 
the honors which Clay and Webster and Cal- 
houn had long worn with distinction. To follow 
Slidell through his congressional career is, there- 
fore, a somewhat pedestrian undertaking, and 
many of its details may be safely omitted as mat- 
ters of routine which fall to the lot of any repre- 
sentative of the people. He was the natural 
spokesman for petitions from his district, so that 
pension claims, adjustment of land titles, petitions 
for light houses near New Orleans, for improve- 





WHEN HE ENTERED POLITICS 


ah 





IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 25 


ments of postal service between Washington and 
New Orleans, for regulation of the mint, and for 
the location or strengthening of government forts 
in the New Orleans district all came within his 
natural purview. 

Out of this mass of legislative detail, one or two 
items stand forth with special distinctness. One 
of these is a bill to exempt from duty cotton im-; 
ported into the United States from Texas,’ indi- 
cating on Slidell’s part an interest in Texan affairs 
which made him available soon afterward for his 
first experience in diplomacy, the mission to Mex- 
ico. Another was the linking of his name with 
that of Andrew Jackson through a resolution, 
most appropriate in a member from New Orleans, 
to remit the fine of $1,000 levied against Jackson 
by Judge Hall in 1815. In what amounted to his 
maiden speech in Congress Slidell vindicated Jack- 
son for enforcing martial law and condemned 
Judge Hall for his severity, reminding his hearers 
incidentally that the judge was an Englishman. 
That Whig opponents discovered in this maneu- 
ver only the machinations of political bankrupts 
seeking the aid of General Jackson’s name is per- 
haps only testimony to its adroitness.* There is 
a kind of rugged simplicity, moreover, in Slidell’s 
refusal to adorn a popular theme with the lan- 


*The Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 1st Session, p. 77, 
Dec. 28, 1843. 
3 ? aH Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, lst Session, p. 96, Jan. 
» 1844, 


26 JOHN SLIDELL 


guage of oratory. “But I have the honor to rep- 
resent the district which comprises within its 
limits the plains of Chalmette—the battle ground 
of the 8th January, 1815, the scene of the most 
glorious victory that adorns our national annals. 
This circumstance and the peculiar position which 
I and my colleagues from Louisiana occupy in 
relation to this question imperatively call upon us 
for some expression of our feelings—something 
more than the mere recording of our silent vote 
in favor of its passage.’* In this connection 
Slidell goes so far as to claim that the people’s 
demand for justice to Andrew Jackson is chiefly 
responsible for the sending of a Democratic dele- 
gation to Congress, “men who would discharge 
that trust with zeal as well as fidelity.”* 

This effort won for its maker an entry in the 
diary of John Quincy Adams to the effect that 
“Slidell made an hours speech for the bill, but 
the passion to pass it was so red-hot that it [the 
House] had not patience to hear him.”® From 
Van Buren it elicited a note of cordial appreci- 
ation, written, no doubt, with the more sincerity 
because Van Buren had learned from other 
sources of Slidell’s enthusiasm at this period for 
his nomination at the forthcoming convention in 


* Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, lst Session. Appendix, p. 
32, Dec. 29, 1843. 


* Ibid. 
5 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, XI. 465. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 27 


Baltimore.® In his reply Slidell seized the oppor- 
tunity to encourage yet at the same time to caution 
Van Buren, thereby raising the issues on which 
the two were soon to part company. Van Buren, 
he wrote, had reason for satisfaction at the 
present posture of affairs. He continued: 


My observation here has only served to strengthen my 
conviction that in every state in the Union, with the single 
exception of South Carolina, the great mass of the Demo- 
cratic party look upon you not only as the fittest but the 
strongest candidate whom they can bring forward. Mr. 
Calhoun’s friends by their earnestness and clamor ap- 
peared to present a strength, which in reality they did not 
possess, but it would be a fatal mistake to suppose that 
we can dispense with their aid in the approaching contest. 
They must be conciliated, they only require certain con- 
cessions to act with us zealously and efficiently. They 
have taken a position which their pride and as I believe 
their honest convictions will compel them to adhere to, 
and their neutrality would be as fatal to us as their oppo- 
sition. They require an adjustment of the tariff on 
revenue principles and the adherence to the 21st rule, in 
substance if not in form. 

When I speak of the tariff, I of course only refer to 
the action of the House of Representatives, for the com- 
position of the Senate gives us no hope of any practical 
decision of that great question by the present Congress. 


Offsetting this encouragement is a warning to 
Van Buren against certain associates of his in 
New York, Messrs. Beardsley and Davis, whose 
spokesmanship for the candidate was misunder- 
stood in many quarters. Very delicate, also, is the 


°Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. George H. Martin 
to Van Buren, Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1843. 


28 | JOHN SLIDELL 


question as to the right of petition to Congress. 
“There may be districts at the north in which the 
question of the right of petition (falsely so called) 
has assumed such an aspect that the democratic 
representative is perhaps bound to respect the 
popular prejudice, but I am sure that there are 
many others in which no such prejudice exists, 
let them act with us. Our Southern friends all 
say that they cannot face their constituents if, in 
a Congress where we count nearly two to one, we 
should repeal a rule adopted by a Whig House.”? 
This perfectly friendly and even cordial letter ex- 
plains the termination of any Van Buren-Slidell 
alliance. Van Buren was to identify himself 
more and more with the northern viewpoint, 
Slidell with the southern. 

Two of Slidell’s personal interests entered into 
his legislative activity in the early months of 1844. 
As a highly successful man of the law and a 
natural individualist and states’ rights advocate, 
Slidell must have offered with positive fervor his 
resolution of March 25, 1844, “That the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary be directed to enquire into 
the expediency of amending existing laws, so as 
to adopt, in the courts of the United States in 
Louisiana, the mode of proceeding in the courts 
of said State in civil cases excepting those of ad- 
miralty jurisdiction; and the said committee be 


"Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Slidell to Van 
Buren. Washington, Feb. 2, 1844. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 29 


further directed to enquire into the expediency of 
repealing so much of the twelfth section of the 
judiciary act of 24th September, 1789, as gives to 
the circuit court of the United States jurisdiction 
of all civil suits at common law, or in equity, when 
an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen 
of another state, and that they do report by the 
bill or otherwise.”® A second and equally abiding 
interest of Slidell’s was his identification with rail; 
road construction in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
the Southwest. Like Stephen A. Douglas, with 
whom he sympathized in so little else, Slidell was 
a railroad builder. This phase of his varied 
outlook received possibly a slight but certainly a 
significant expression in his presentation of a peti- 
tion of the Mexican Gulf railroad company for 
remission of duties on iron, an indirect but not 
the less valuable type of government subsidy.° 
To Slidell as a member for Louisiana fell the 
making of arrangements whereby Congress 
should honor the funeral of his colleague, the 
Honorable P. E. Bossier, who died in office. In 
his words of eulogy Slidell paid homage not only 
to the deceased but also to his own constituents, 
when he described Mr. Bossier as “one of that 
ancient population which, in many parts of our 
State, still preserve the language, manners and 


® Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Ist Session, p. 432. March 
25, 1844, 

° Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 1st Session, April 4, 1844, 
p. 482. 


30 JOHN SLIDELL 


customs of their fathers; remarkable for their 
almost patriarchal symplicity, their unbending 
honesty, their chivalrous courage, their frank and 
manly spirit—a population surpassed by none in 
all the wide expanse of this republic, for its patri- 
otic devotion to our free institutions.” In thus 
lauding his deceased colleague, Slidell found the 
opportunity for a tribute to the race into which he 
had so happily married, Mrs. Slidell being the 
daughter of one of the proudest French creole 
families in the state. Another passage in this 
funeral oration, appropriate enough in itself and 
expressed with dignity and doubtless with convic- 
tion, carries one ahead, nevertheless, to a period 
twelve years later when Slidell’s indifference to 
the assault upon Charles Sumner was to demon- 
strate that he, like many others, had forgotten the 
principles here enunciated. “When to-morrow, 
we shall follow to the tomb the mortal remains of 
him who but so recently participated in our delib- 
erations, would it not be well for each and every 
one of us, standing around his yet unclosed grave, 
silently to make the solemn pledge that no 
harsh recriminations, no personal altercations, no 
unseemly broils, shall hereafter desecrate the 
solemnity of this hall?’’?® 


*” Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 1st Session, p. 558. Thurs- 
day Apr. 25, 1844. For a notice of this address, see Adams, 
Memoirs, XII. 18. “Slidell pronounced a genteel eulogy upon 
him, lauded him with Latin and French proverbs, and crowned him 
with a chaplet of French Creole virtues.” 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 31 


Two days later, Slidell made the most elaborate 
speech of his career in the lower house and one 
of the few extended speeches of his parliamentary 
experience.'* The subject was doubly inspiring as 
an opportunity to present his own views upon the 
tariff and at the same time to strike a blow at the 
hated Whigs. He opened in a sarcastic vein. “I 
shall at least have the merit—which I cannot but 
regret should be so rare a one on this floor—of 
confining myself to the question before us.” That 
question being the tariff, Slidell expressed aston- 
ishment that the Whigs should have adopted it as 
their chief shibboleth, at the expense of the Bank, 
which had long been supposed by the uninitiated 
to be “the sun of the great Whig system.” 

Passing to the heart of the issue, Slidell de- 
veloped an economic creed which is as creditable 
to his business acumen as to his political sagacity. 
He attributed the financial depression from 1840 
to 1843 to over-production, extravagance, and 
poor currency. Recovery had been due to econ- 
omy. The doctrine of a national debt he ignored 
as no longer even advocated. On taxation he 
offered a comment well in advance of his time: 

Of all the modes of raising revenue, direct taxation, in{ 
the shape of an uniform per centage upon every species 
of property, real and personal, or upon income, is, proba- 


bly, the most equitable that could be devised. It is the 
only means by which the rich can be made to pay their 


“ Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 1st Session. Appendix, 
pp. 386-392. April 27, 1844. 


32 JOHN SLIDELL 


fair quota for the support of the government which pro- 
tects them in the enjoyment of their property. It is cer- 
tainly the system which would insure the most economical 
administration; for all experience shows that a heavy 
indirect taxation is more cheerfully submitted to than a 
more moderate direct one. The same person who cheer- 
fully because unconsciously pays dollars in the shape of 
enhanced price caused by imposts on articles of daily 
necessary consumption, would receive most ungraciously 
the visit of the national tax-gatherer for a much smaller 
sum; and in proportion to the grudging reluctance with 
which he paid the tax, would be the watchful scrutiny 
with which he would criticise the expenditure. 


The interest which the American people of the 
present day take in a budget system and in efforts, 
like those of General Dawes, to lop off needless 
expenditures bears convincing testimony to Sli- 
dell’s judgment in linking together direct taxation 
and national economy. 

But he recognized that against the theoretical 
merits of direct taxation certain practical objec- 
tions could be offered. It meant for one thing a 
vast increase in Federal patronage, perhaps even 
at the cost of revenue to the state governments. 
More unfortunate still, it was opposed to the will 
of the people. Customs and the sale of public 
lands were, therefore, however regrettable it 
might be, the natural resource of government 
finance. Land would yield but a small per cent of 
the amount required, and proceeds of land sales 
“should be devoted exclusively to the payment of 
the public debt until that important object be 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 33 


effected.” It will be noted that this attitude 
toward land and the public debt was Jeffersonian 
in the strictest sense; it is one of Slidell’s titles to 
being a sound Democrat. 

With a customs levy inevitable, the problem of 
adjusting it equitably remained. No class must be 
overburdened. Customs duties could never be 
other than unequal, but inequality must be re- 
duced toa minimum. Slidell was perhaps more a | 
Cleveland Democrat than a Jeffersonian when he 
declared: “In the present state of the question, Iv 
am neither for free trade nor for protection other 
than that which is incidental, and compatible with 
fair revenue principles.” 

Free trade, under such conditions as actually 
faced the treasury, was impracticable, because it 
would close all the custom houses and lead to 
direct taxation. Correspondingly, too high a 
tariff should not be levied, even upon luxuries, for 
the reason that it would simply promote smug- 
gling and injure both the revenue and honest 
tradesmen. “It is worse than idle to promulgate 
laws which we cannot execute.” A prohibitive 
tariff being as inadvisable as free trade, and sub- 
ject also to the consideration that its effect upon 
domestic manufacturers would be so stimulating 
as to exclude foreign goods altogether, Slidell fell 
into a possibly unconscious sophistry that it too 
might force the country back upon a direct tax or 
upon customs duties levied on foreign articles such 


34 JOHN SLIDELL 


as tea, sugar, coffee, wines, spirits, silks, and raw 
materials, which had already become objects of 
necessity but which were not capable of home pro- 
duction. “It would not be hazarding much to 
predict,” he asserted, “that in ten years these 
articles will furnish three-fourths of the whole 
revenue from imports,” and he further added that 
“imposts, to be productive, must fall upon articles 
of general consumption.” 

It was manifestly impossible for a congress- 
man from Louisiana to discuss the tariff without 
animadverting upon sugar. Slidell faced the issue 
squarely but shrewdly. Quoting Calhoun and Mc- 
Duffie as favorable to a tariff on sugar for reve- 
nue only, he insisted that the existing tariff was 
the lowest consistent with a maximum revenue. 
To reduce the tariff by half a cent would cost the 
revenue $1,070,000, an amount not easily spared. 
As for the planter, even one who was out of debt, 
present prices insured only a very moderate return - 
upon capital invested. His plea, therefore, was for 
a continuation of existing duties on sugar. A tariff 
for revenue was consistent with the continued 
existence of the planters. The idea of a protective 
tariff was not entertained, “for all experience 
shows that monopoly is the parent of carelessness 
and extravagant expenditure, of weakness and 
lethargy.” On the other hand, protagonists of 
free trade made no headway with Slidell when 
they described Great Britain, the homeland of 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 35 


free trade, as an Elysian Field. “Long may it be 
before the lords of the factory, the spinning- 
jenny, and the loom, shall reduce to slavish de- 
pendence the yet proud yeomanry of America.” 
From generalities he proceeded to facts, citing the 
various sugar duties from 1800 to 1842 and de- 
claring once more his belief in the fairness of the 
existing impost of two and a half cents a pound. 
“At two cents the present establishments would 
probably be kept up; but no new ones would be 
formed below this rate.” To hamper Louisiana 
sugar interests would be equivalent to bestowing 
a special bonus upon the colonies of Spain. And 
Slidell inquired, pertinently enough, “Is there 
anything in our commercial relations with them 
that should induce us to treat them with particular 
favor?” 

Returning to the defence of the local interest, 
he declared that “we only make the reasonable 
request that you will not disturb a long established 
order of things, coeval with our admission into 
the great American family, that has gradually di- 
rected the enterprise and capital of our citizens 
into channels from which they cannot now be 
diverted, without inflicting inevitable ruin upon 
those embarked in them, and the severest distress 
upon our State at large.’ Incidentally, he re- 
minded Congress that while sugar duties had 
remained stationary, those on cotton and woolens 
had increased five-fold. Moreover, unlike the 


36 JOHN SLIDELL 


manufacturers in cotton and woolens, sugar plant- 
ers possessed no monopoly of their market. In 
addition, to lower the sugar duty would necessitate 
a levy upon tea and coffee. “Is this any better 
for the consumer than to pay just on sugar?” 
With an almost clairvoyant vision of farmers’ 
associations and agricultural “blocs,” he pointed 
out that “The agricultural interests must sustain 
each other; they have been too long the dupes and 
victims of factory combinations.” 

With this the speech may be said to have 
reached its climax, though interesting matters of 
detail remained for consideration. For example, 
Slidell quoted Hunt’s Merchants Magazine to 
prove that cessation of sugar production in Louisi- 
ana would cause the United States to pay higher 
prices because of the world’s diminished produc- 
tion. Under existing conditions, the planter made 
only five per cent, surely not an exorbitant return. 
Moreover, the entire country had an interest in 
preserving an equilibrium under which Louisiana 
raised sugar. The North and Northwest feed 
her; New England sends her manufactured goods 
and carries them to and fro; while the cotton pro- 
ducing South could only regret a shift in Louisi- 
ana from sugar to cotton production which would 
add 200,000 bales of Louisiana cotton to an over- 
stocked cotton market, with corresponding injury 
to prices: In fine, “I ‘believe that) eae 
knell of the protective tariff system has been rung. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 37 


I do not wish the sugar duty to be identi- 
aed with it.” Newenidhe less, if changes must be 
wrought, the intelligent planter would prefer the 
permanent assurance of two cents to a precarious 
claim upon two and a half. 

The clear thinking of Slidell’s early statement 
of fundamentals in taxation and the art with 
which he undertook to demonstrate that sugar. 
duties were in harmony with these indisputable 
premises make this tariff speech of Slidell’s a 
really notable effort of its kind and help one} 
to comprehend the faith which he inspired in} 
practical men.’” 

If Slidell was thus establishing an intellectual 
claim to recognition in the event of a national 
Democratic victory, his claim as an active political 
worker was equally strong. His part in swinging 
Louisiana into line for Polk in the campaign of 
1844 aroused the bitterest antagonism and led to 
accusations of gross frauds at the polls. Slidell 
entered upon the contest with a confidence which 
success was to justify. A letter to Buchanan on 
the eve of battle, written from New York on Sep- 
tember 22, 1844, the first of a long series between 
the two friends, declares that: 


“But cf. the dry comment of John Quincy Adams in his 
Memoirs, XII, 19. “The day was consumed in the dullest of 
hour speeches, with Hopkins in the chair, by James E. Belser, of 
Alabama, against the tariff, Richard Brodhead, of Easton, Penn- 
sylvania, for it, John Slidell, of New Orleans, on both sides, and 
Lewis Stenrod, of Whecling, anti-tariff to the backbone. Four 
speeches—four hours.” 


—_ 


38 JOHN SLIDELL 


I shall leave here tomorrow for New Orleans. I have 
not the slightest apprehension respecting the vote of 
Louisiana, but I should not feel satisfied with myself were 
I absent from my post on the day of battle. As I shall 
have occasion to address our friends before we can re- 
ceive the returns of your governors election I would like 
to have it in my power to speak with confidence of the 
vote of Pennsylvania. Can there be any doubt of Shanks 
election, and what will probably be his majority—your 
means of information are such that you cannot be much 
out of the way in your calculations. 

I regret not to have had the pleasure of meeting with 
you since the adjournment. Have you made arrange- 
ments for your lodgings during the session—You were 
kind enough to express a desire that we might be together 
and nothing would afford me greater satisfaction. Believe 
me very sincerely, 

Your friend and servant, 
John Slidell. 
Honl. James Buchanan, 
Lancaster.18 


Slidell is here revealed as already on terms of 
intimacy with one of the leading politicians of his 
party, the secretary of state in the forthcoming 
administration. One finds in this circumstance 
and in the capacities and energies of Slidell an 
explanation of the choice which was to fall upon 
him rather than upon Calhoun or any other man 
to conduct the delicate and dangerous negotiations 
which Polk relied upon to avert a war with 
Mexico. 


*Buchanan Papers. Library of the Historical Society of 
Pennsylvania. Slidell to Buchanan. September 22, 1844. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 39 


The campaign in Louisiana, upon which Slidell 
entered so joyously, was disgraced by much illegal 
voting.”* 
into doubtful districts, particularly that of Plac- 
quemine, lying to the south of New Orleans, 
apparently by both sides, but so much of the 
odium attached to Slidell that he was obliged to 
notice the charges when Congress convened for 
the second session. These charges were pressed 
from a most awkward source, by none other than 
Barrow, the senator from Louisiana to whose 
position Slidell was himself eventually to succeed. 
Barrow, in a speech on the annexation of Texas, 
which he opposed, declared that resolutions of the 
Louisiana legislature favorable to annexation did 
not necessarily represent the will of the people 
“because he knew full well that that election had 
been carried by the most infamous frauds 
however it might have been in other states—in the 
State of Louisiana at least Mr. Clay was cheated 
—villanously [sic] cheated out of the electoral 
vote of that State.’’® 

Slidell replied on the following day. He re- 
gretted that party squabbles should be injected 
into so grave a question as that of annexation. 
For this reason he had ignored some unfavorable 
comments by a member from North Carolina. 
The charges of Barrow were, however, too 


“For an account of this see G. P. Garrison, Westward Extension 
in the American Nation Series. 

* Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 233. Senate, 
Feb. 3, 1845. 


Strong bodies of roughs were imported ~ 


40 JOHN SLIDELL 


pointed to ignore, and Slidell carried the war 
right into enemy territory by admitting that in so 
hotly contested an election there were doubtless 
some frauds, but he insisted that the preponder- 
ance of blame lay with the Whigs. 


He had no doubt whatever that if a balance could have 
been struck, of every vote on either side, illegally rejected, 
or illegally received, the result would have been a large 
addition to the democratic majority of the State of Louisi- 


ana. . . . He would not indulge in the acrimonious 
language which had been used in another part of this 
building. . . . Some paliation [sic] for it might be 


found in the bitterness of disappointed hopes. But he 
should feel that he was doing an injustice to the democracy 
of Louisiana, if he did not declare it to be his solemn and 
deliberate conviction, that nine-tenths of all election 
frauds that have ever been perpetrated in that State were 
of Whig origin, and in favor of Whig candidates.’ 


As if charges and countercharges in the Plac- 
quemine frauds were not troubles enough of his 
own, Slidell was involved in those of Joshua 
Giddings, the abolitionist member from Ohio. 
Giddings, on February 6, 1845, opposed a bill to 
compensate certain Georgia slave-owners to the 
amount of $141,000 as payment in lieu of the 
children which would have been borne by slave- 
women who had become fugitives among the 
Indians. Black of Georgia, in reply, asserted that 
Giddings had been interested in horses used to aid 
Maryland slaves to escape, intimated that Gid- 


** Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, Feb. 4, 1845, 
p. 243. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 41 


dings belonged in the penitentiary, and affirmed 
that the franking through the mail of a calico 
dress for his wife was in itself sufficient ground 
to put him there if Congress so chose. 

While Giddings was on his feet in denial ot 
both stories, Black entered a small aisle adjacent 
to the speaker and, brandishing a cane, shouted: 
“Tf you repeat those words, I will knock you 
down.” Determined to test the courage of Black, 
Giddings did repeat them, but Black meanwhile 
was carried away by his friends. As Giddings 
went on with his remarks it was the turn of 
another bully, Dawson of Louisiana, to silence 
him. With hand placed threateningly on his 
pocket, he cried: “I'll shoot him, by G-d! [ll 
shoot him!” Causin, a Maryland Whig, now 
placed himself between the two men, facing Daw- 
son and ready to fire. At this juncture Slidell 
and three others drew up for the defence of Daw- 
son. The party of Giddings was similarly réen- 
forced, and the scene was laid for melodrama, if 
not for tragedy. The southerners may have felt 
that their situation was ridiculous. At any rate, 
Slidell and others of the Dawson contingent with- 
drew one by one, leaving their captain alone to 
confront Causin while Giddings went on with his 
speech.” In all of this, Slidell’s was fortunately 
not a major role. It probably, however, won 
rather than lost him friends. 


™ George W. Julian, The Life of Joshua R. Giddings, (Chicago, 
1892), pp. 172-174. 


42 JOHN SLIDELL 


On the whole the second session was for Slidell 
less happy than the first, and his activity, while 
probably undiminished, won him less distinction. 
He was, for example, one of eight against 171 to 
vote in opposition to calculating congressional 
railway mileage by the nearest and most direct 
mail route.** On the question of duelling his vote 
deserves no praise. Upon rumor of an impend- 
ing duel between Clingman and Yancy a resolu- 
tion was introduced by Preston King, “That if it 
shall appear to the said Committee . . . that 
any member of this House have been engaged in 
fighting a duel on account of words spoken in 
debate on this floor, then the said Committee are 
instructed to report the facts with a resolution to 
expel from this House any member or members 
guilty of such crime.’’® This dignified and 
humane resolution Slidell moved to table, appar- 
ently having already forgotten his own remarks 
at the funeral of Bossier. His motion was lost, 
75 to 94. Ona vote to concur with a committee 
which had stricken out a proviso allowing Florida 
in certain circumstances to erect another state, 
East Florida, Slidell went on record as opposed. 
In other words he favored a chance to make 
another slave state there.”° 


*® Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 63, Dec. 23, 
1844. : 

” Ibid., p. 144, Jan. 16, 1845. 

*° Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 286, Feb. 
13, 1845. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 43 


On the other hand, much of his legislative ac-: 
tivity was progressive. He invariably took a 
constructive interest in naval affairs, and a motion 
to insure to the several states and territories their 
fair proportion in the appointment of midship- 
men*' to Annapolis was conducive to inter-state 
harmony and the good of the service. Similarly, 
Slidell’s anxiety to deprive congressmen absent 
from duty for any other cause than illness of 
their per diem allowance is creditable to his judg- 
ment and his honesty.” This sensitiveness to the 
niceties of business honor underlay another reso- 
lution of Slidell’s, namely that the President be 
requested to inform the house of all cases of em- 
bezzlement of the funds of the United States by 
public officers, and further to state the number of 
prosecutions or the reasons for exemption.”* That 
his interest in economy was not narrow and petty 
appears in what for Slidell was a lengthy speech 
in behalf of a $20,000 appropriation to restore the 
dilapidated furniture of the White House. He 
scorned what he deemed the demagogic play of 
economizing on the President’s furniture.”* But 
it is of course possible in this case that Slidell, the 
good Democrat, was primarily interested in an 
adequate setting for the Democratic President 
whose election he had labored so hard to insure. 


* Tbid., p. 373, Feb. 28, 1845. 

* Tbid., p. 327, Feb. 21, 1845. 

* Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, Jan. 23, 1845. 
* Tbid., pp. 309-310, Feb. 19, 1845. 


Ad JOHN SLIDELL 


He was also quite willing to be liberal with ap- 
propriations of interest to New Orleans, $100,- 
000° for a new custom house, and $300,000 for 
harbor improvement.”°. 

More striking than these motions of routine, 
however, revealing as they may be as to the tem- 
perament of their author, was a resolution on 
behalf of an amendment to the constitution of the 
United States. It is true that Slidell was not a 
youth. But this was his first Congress, and so 
radical a proposal betrayed no lack of self-confi- 
dence. His resolution, never adopted in form but 
now partially followed in substance, was distinctly 
liberal in tone and forward looking. 


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
two thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following 
amendment of the constitution of the United States be 
proposed to the several States, to be valid, to all intents 
and purposes, as part of said constitution, when ratified 
by the legislatures of three-fourths of said States, viz: 
The election of President and Vice-President shall here- 
after be made directly by the people, or the legislatures, 
of the several States, without the intervention of electors. 
Each State shall, in such manner as the legislature thereof 
may direct, give as many votes for President and Vice- 
President as may be equal to the whole number of sena- 
tors and representatives to which the State may be entitled 
in the Congress. The returns of said votes shall be certi- 
fied and transmitted by the several states in the manner 


* Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 323-326, 
Feb, 21, 1845, and p. 65, Dec. 23, 1844. 


* Ibid., p. 356, Feb. 26, 1845. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45 


and form now prescribed for certifying and transmitting 
the votes of the electoral college.?7 


With Slidell the rise to national eminence was a 
gradual process. His were not the dashing quali- 
ties which lift their owner to sudden and dazzling 
heights. He was fifty years old when he entered 
the house of representatives, and that is scarcely 
the final goal of most aspirants for nation-wide 
fame. But Slidell built on solid foundations, and 
each successive step was upheld by the confidence 
of his contemporaries. Certainly his congres- 
sional record was solid, if not brilliant, and his| e 
party services entitled him to executive recogni- 
tion. President Polk and, doubtless more par- 
ticularly, Secretary Buchanan knew their man 
when they selected Slidell, altogether untrained in; 
formal diplomacy but a master in the manipula- 
tion of men, for the delicate mission of soothing 
an offended Mexico and winning from her not 
only recognition of the Texan fatt accompli but 
also further concessions. 

Slidell accepted the mission with alacrity. 
“Should a minister be appointed, the charge will 
at least be a responsible one, and should a nego- 
tiation be brought to a favorable issue, credit and 
reputation will be acquired. Should your views 
be unchanged, and my appointment be entirely 
satisfactory, I think that I ought not to decline 


* Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 41, Dec. 17, 
1844. 


46 JOHN SLIDELL 


it.”’*> At the same time he felt that his constitu- 
ents were entitled to an explanation for his seem- 
ing abandonment of their interests by quitting 
Congress. His embarrassment in the situation is 
conveyed to Buchanan in the following letter. 


The circumstances under which I shall leave Louisiana 
deprive me of all opportunity of explaining to my friends 
the manner in which the appointment has been tendered 
to me and the motives which have governed me in accept- 
ing it. These motives will be freely canvassed by my 
political opponents here, and as they will have the start 
of me, I could desire to have as early a correction as pos- 
sible. This can only be done by an authoritative editorial 
declaration in the Union that I have not sought office and 
did not determine to accept it without much hesitation.?® 
The distinguished compliment which the offer conveyed 
and the very responsible and arduous character of the 
mission, must be my apologies for vacating my seat in 
Congress.?° 


Two other letters in the Slidell-Buchanan cor- 
respondence pertain to the period preceding the 
Mexican mission. On October 23rd, Slidell is in 
considerable alarm lest all his efforts on behalf of 
the Louisiana sugar tariff prove unavailing. He 
fears lest the administration may have committed 


** Buchanan Papers, in the Library of the Historical Society of 
Pennsylvania. Slidell to Buchanan, May, 1845 


* Tbid., Slidell to Buchanan, Oct. 1, 1845. 


* To make sure that such an editorial was prepared, Slidell ap- 
pealed also to Nicholas P. Trist, chief clerk in the state depart- 
ment. See Nicholas P. Trist Papers. Library of Congress. Slidell 
to Trist. “Ship S. Mary’s, Nov. 20, 1845.” Trist was already 
commissioned to forward a draft to Slidell’s account in New 
Orleans and to cancel the lease of a house in Washington taken 
for the congressional season. Ibid. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 47 


itself to a reduction even below two cents a pound. 
“For the sake of conciliation and harmony, I 
would yield much, but I am not prepared to adopt 
tne wild vagaries of Mr. Duffie, etc: .. .. A 
horizontal tariff is an absurdity, the party that 
will make that issue is doomed to inevitable de- 
feat.”** Again on November 19th, just on the 
eve of sailing, Slidell writes in good spirits, but 
with evidence of a volatile and high-strung ner- 
vous system, that “You have indeed given me a 
splendid chance for distinction and I assure you 
that it shall not be my fault if I do not succeed. I 
feel in high spirits and hope to give a good account 
of myself. .. . I have had no sleep for two 
nights; it is now midnight. I have arranged to 
embark at seven tomorrow morning.’’** 

Slidell had indeed come to one of the great 
opportunities of his life. He approached the task | 
with intelligence and enthusiasm. If he should 
fail, it would not, as he said, be his fault. 


™ Buchanan Papers. Slidell to Buchanan, Oct. 23, 1845. 
* Buchanan Papers. Slidell to Buchanan, Nov. 19, 1845. 


eee 


CHAPTER III 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 


Y his mission to Mexico Slidell became an 
empire-builder and linked his name with the 
expansion of the American people. For in that 
amazing development which has extended Amer- 
ican dominion from Porto Rico to the Philippines, 
from Panama to Alaska, few more significant 
steps have been taken than the incorporation of 
Texas into the Union and the guiding of our 
southern boundary to the Pacific. The extreme 
sectionalism of America at the time led many to a 
false interpretation of our Mexican relations, and 
historians were long disposed to perpetuate the 
error. But an examination of the diplomatic 
moves preceding the war suggests that America 
bore provocation patiently and moved slowly, 
even honorably, toward her goal. For our diplo- 
macy, even on the eve of the war, was not a 
half-hearted blind to conceal preparations, nor a 
ceremonial slavery to etiquette, but a manful 
endeavor to achieve great ends by liberal means. 
In the autumn of 1845 President Polk deter- 
mined to give Mexico one last day of grace. Since 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 49 


Jackson’s time conditions to the south of us had 
gone from bad to worse until, in face of our de- 
termination to annex Texas, diplomatic relations 
had ceased. Yet American expansion, the slavery 
question, the very peace of the Union, hinged on 
a successful renewal of the relations. Polk, an 
outspoken imperialist, led a divided country. If 
his secretary of the treasury, Robert J. Walker of 
Mississippi, urged the annexation of Texas and 
a vast expansion of slavery in the Southwest, John 
Quincy Adams and New England as stoutly op- 
posed ; nor were the great number of conservatives 
of the Buchanan type committed to any definite 
policy of expansion. Through peaceful measures 
only could Polk guide a united following and offer 
a minimum of target to his enemies. Hence his 
plan to solve the Texas problem and to acquire 
Mexican lands without resort to arms. 

A solution offered itself in the American claims 
against Mexico, which a board of arbitration had 
estimated at $2,026,139.68' and on which only 
three installments had been paid. What more 
providential arrangement could be suggested than 

to take payment in land for these heavy arrears 
and, if need be, to add a liberal bonus to smooth 
the path of diplomacy and to quiet the conscience 
of statesmen! Mexico had withdrawn her am- 


*Senate Executive Document, Number 52, 30th Congress, Ist 
Session, Buchanan’s instructions to Slidell. Also Executive Docu- 
ment, Number 196, p. 33, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 1845-46, and 
J. B. Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, V1. 297. 


50 JOHN SLIDELL 


bassador on March 7, 1845, and international 
courtesy demanded that she take the first steps 
in any renewal of diplomatic relations. But Polk 
,was willing to waive all ceremony.” A great 
power could take the initiative gracefully, and 
\peace was essential to his program. He had 
always favored the annexation of Texas; he had 
cast longing eyes upon northern Mexico; but by 
1845 the fear of the “slave power” had become 
too keen an issue at the North to hazard an un- 
necessary war upon its account. Polk’s policy, 
then, demanded a renewal of peaceful negoti- 
ations, but such a mission as would accomplish the 
full measure of Polk’s aims would require delicate 
handling. Mexico must see the light. She must 
learn, what nine years of guerilla fighting had 
failed to teach her, that Texas was no longer hers. 
She must learn the value of money and the wisdom 
of paying her debts. She must sell her lands to 
raise this money. Hardest of all for a proud 
people, she must learn to pocket her pride. 

Our consul at the Mexican capital prepared the 
way, and Mexico agreed to receive as envoy “one 
commissioned with full power to settle the dispute 
in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner.” 
That John Slidell was chosen for the post was an 
honor so much the greater, as the difficulties were 
understood inadvance. Victory would mean glory; 


* Executive Document, Number 196, p. 81, 29th Congress, Ist 
Session, 1845-46. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 51 


failure would involve no disgrace. The two issues; 
for Slidell to settle were the annexation of Texa 

and the settlement of our Mexican claims. Th 

great cause of Texan annexation had been before 
the American people since Calhoun first advocated 
it in 1836, but it was allowed to lapse until the 
famous Gilmer letter of January 10, 1843, 
pleaded for immediate action before the growing 
influence of Great Britain should bring about 
abolition. This letter raised such a storm of pro- 
test in New England that the Report of March 3, 
1843, signed by Adams and fifteen other members 
of Congress, went so far as to foretell that the 
North would not submit to a violation of the “na- 
tional compact,” but that that section would pre- 
fer instead “a dissolution of the Union.”’ Walker’s 
masterful counterplea of January 8, 1844, re- 
enforced the Monroe Doctrine with a warning 
that Texas in unfriendly hands was too near New 
Orleans. Walker painted a glowing picture of 
Texas as a market for northern goods, a field for 
southern enterprise, a solution for the Negro prob- 
lem, and, from its logical unity with the great 
Mississippi Valley, a necessary safeguard to the 
Oregon Trail. In fact, as General Jackson had 
viewed it, its annexation was a military necessity. 
Texas, he contended, was free by the same right 
of revolution which had established Mexico, and 
failure to annex her would ultimately mean Brit- 


* Richmond Enquirer, January 26, 1843. 


52 JOHN SLIDELL 


ish control of Texas as well as of a new league 
including our southern and southwestern states. 
The strong element of truth in Walker’s picture 
won many to the cause, but even so the “Joint 
Resolutions’* for Texas annexation were carried 
only by the slenderest possible margin, 27 to 25. 


'The annexation of Texas was, then, a fact. It 


was Slidell’s task to interpret this fact to the very 
slow perceptions of Mexico. The Mexicans, once 
having mastered the idea that Texas was no 
longer theirs, would next have to learn its new 
boundary.® At this point the American claims 
would arise as a convenient leverage for securing 
a liberal interpretation of this boundary. In fact 
Polk named the settlement of the claims as an 
indisputable object of the Slidell mission. “I could 
not, for a moment, entertain the idea that the 
claims of our much injured and long suffering 
citizens . . . should be postponed, or separated, 
from the settlement of the boundary question.’® 

There existed, therefore, a complicated back- 
ground of slavery extension, westward expansion, 
Anglophobia, Mexican irritation, and armed in- 
tervention, all of which Slidell had to consider in 
his mission of peace. The situation was undoubt- 
edly a delicate one, but historical fairness forbids 


“February 27, 1845. 

* Taylor had orders to advance to the Rio Grande as a boundary. 
Executive Document, Number 196, pp. 70-71. 29th Congress, Ist ~ 
Session. 

* Executive Document, Number 196, p. 2. 29th Congress, Ist 
Session, 1845-6. Polk’s Message. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 53 


that we read into Polk’s policy a deliberate Gites 
tion to provoke a war with a weaker power under 
the hypocritical mask of a desire for peace. Polk’s 
somewhat jaunty talk about paying huge sums to 
Mexico for ceded territory,’ while it betrays gross 
ignorance of the Spanish character, ought to ac- 
quit him of a malicious determination for war on 
any pretext. There is unimpeachable evidence, 
moreover, that he desired Slidell to be received 
and the negotiations to progress,® though the de- 
gree of his actual faith in the mission and in the 
ends to be achieved is a matter of conjecture. 
Many of Polk’s instructions were oral; many of 
his projects were not confided even to his journal; 
and Slidell, though “obliged to make an exception 
in favor of Mrs. S.[lidell]”*® was pledged to 
secrecy. Neither Polk nor Slidell could feel en- 
tirely sanguine, yet Slidell entered upon the 
mission confident that Mexico “desire[d] to set- 
tle amicably all the questions in dispute between 
(GICs ama a 

Did not manifest destiny point to a continental 
empire from ocean to ocean? Would not Provi- 
dence, which had done so much for us, round out 
its labors? Was not Texas necessary to our 
national life if we were to be free from British or 


"Reports of Committees, 1st Session, 29th Congress, Volume 
{IV, 1845-6, Report Number 752, p. 37. 

* Polk’s Diary, 1. 35, September 16, 1845. 

® Polk’s Diary, I. 36, September 17, 1845. 

J. B. Moore (Ed.), Works of James Buchanan, VI. 265. 

“4 Tbid., VI. 265. 


54 JOHN SLIDELL 


French aggression? Surely there was ground for 
hope that these desirable ends could be attained by 
peaceful means. But whatever real confidence 
Slidell and the administration felt must have been 
due to a belief that Mexico would see the need of 
making the best of things. To help her in adopt- 
ing this policy they were ready to be liberal.’? If 
hope blinded them to some of the difficulties, it 
was only natural. 

The opposition saw these obstacles more clearly. 
Thus the Reverend Dr. Ellis** held that no Mexi- 
can government could survive which would volun- 
tarily surrender Texas. Only war could attain that 
object, and as war would precipitate European in- 
tervention; “our possession under any circum- 
stances, must be a possession secured by force.” 
But the ability of a New England opposition to 
see a mote in its brother’s eye does not justify the 
imputation of base motives to Polk or his govern- 
ment. The hopeless confusion of Mexican affairs 
was not a temporary aberration. It was chronic. 
Though many of our Mexican claims were doubt- 
less absurd, others were thoroughly valid, and 
these had been all too long in abeyance. Self- 
respect demanded action. Nor could action be 
deferred in the idle dream that Mexico, unham- 


* Polk’s Diary, 1. 33-35. 

* Letters upon the Annexation of Texas—Address to Hon. John 
Quincy Adams, 1845. Ellis was an eminent Unitarian divine, pas- 
tor of the Harvard Church in Charlestown, Massachusetts. The 
letters, fifteen in number, extend from December 19, 1844, to 
March 15, 1845. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 55 


pered, might recover her power in the north. The 
loss of Tamaulipas was far more probable than 
the recovery of Texas. 

The final steps toward dispatching the mission 
were not taken until Polk had used all possible 
means to sound Mexican sentiment and to be as- 
sured of a welcome for the commissioner. Pre- 
liminary negotiations were conducted through Mr. 
Black, the consul at Mexico City, but other agents 
were also used,’* and reports from Commodore 
Conner of the squadron in the Gulf of Mexico 
_ and Dr. Parrott, our confidential agent at Mexico, 
confirmed Polk in a belief that “the government 
of Mexico were willing . . . toreceivea Minis- 
ter from the U. States’ and “anxious to settle 
the pending difficulties between the two countries, 
including those of boundary.” Assuredly, Polk 
did not enter blindly upon the fruitless embassy. 
He had made careful soundings. With a clear- 
ness of vision unusual in American Presidents, he 
defined his aim. With a precision of action rare 
in diplomacy, he sought it. Slidell and his mission 
were a step toward its fulfillment. If successful, 
so much the better; if a failure, there were at 
hand other means, less desirable, perhaps, but 
more certain. 

Of the instructions finally given to Slidell only 
a synopsis is necessary. As already indicated, 
they covered two principal points, the recognition 


“ Polk’s Diary, I. 91, 93. 


56 JOHN SLIDELL 


; of the annexation of Texas, with a settlement of 
its boundary, and the final adjudication of our 
| claims against Mexico. But bound up with both 
these points was a vast scheme of empire to carry 
the southern boundary of the United States to the 
Pacific. For this last, Polk was willing to pay a 
great price in proportion as the boundary was 
more or less satisfactory to the administration. 
Starting from the independence of Texas as “a 
settled fact, and .. . not to be called into 
question,” Slidell was ordered to uphold the Rio 
| Grande as the established boundary, and in com- | 
pensation to assume payment of our claims. 
For actual cessions of Mexican territory, a sliding 
scale of prices was authorized. For such a line as 
would include New Mexico and thus “obviate the 
danger of future collisions,” the claims would be 
cancelled and a bonus of five millions would be 
paid. For the grander scheme of a cession of Cali- 
fornia, “money would be no object compared with 
the value of the acquisition.” Its amount would 
vary with the line determined upon. Twenty-five 
millions would be none too much for a line “from 
the southern extremity of New Mexico to the Pa- 
cific Ocean, . . . which would embrace Mon- 
terey within our limits;’ twenty millions, for a 
similar line “so as to include the bay and harbor 
of San Francisco. . . . Of course when I speak 
of any point on the western boundary of New 
Mexico; it is understood that from the Del Norte 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 57 


to that point our boundary shall run according to 
the first offer which you have been authorized to 
make.” Finally, Slidell was bidden to conclude a; 
treaty, even if it should include only one of the 
specified objects of his mission. 
The objection may arise that the whole scheme 
twas to be a trade on Mexico’s poverty; that to 
accept land in place of gold and to soothe the 
American pride of'conscience by giving American 
dollars for more land than could properly be seized 
under any pretext of foreclosure was a Machiavel- 
lian contrivance to spread the eagle and slavery 
. over a wider compass. But that would involve a 
preconceived notion that Polk and his policies 
were inherently depraved, that the “interests” 
were a unit for land grabbing—a position not 
easily tenable in view of powerful opposition from 
New England and the North—, and that the idea 
of national destiny which animated so many 
minds was a mere slogan, foisted by many inter- 
ested persons upon a gullible public. The cynic, 
too, may smile at a kindness which would absorb 
New Mexico so that there might be no occasion 
to ask for it again. But in his California policy, 
at least, no question exists of Polk’s sincerity. 
Vigorous action was so essential at a time when 
our Pacific expansion at the north was in jecp- 
ardy that his California project must count as at 
least one point in proof of Polk’s desire that the 
mission succeed. Moreover, while it is puzzling to 


fl? 


58 JOHN SLIDELL 


see how a constitutional President could have the 
assurance to propose it on his own responsibility, 
the very heavy payment which the minister was 
instructed to offer for California is indubitable 
fevidence of Polk’s anxiety for a peaceful settle- 
ment. The maximum offer of twenty-five mil- 
lions was immense in comparison with what had 
been paid for Louisiana or Florida. And it is 
against all reason to imagine that Polk’s offer of 
money was intended as a sting to Mexican pride 
which would goad that country into war. His 
worst detractors have not accused Polk of stupid- 
ity. On the contrary, his strong sagacity would 
warn him that from a merely political point of 
view the peaceful and lawful purchase of the west 
would be far preferable to a war of conquest 
waged in opposition to northern sentiment.*® In 
view of the sharp political opposition to any ex- 
tension of slave territory, and considering the 
nature of instructions which authorized a treaty 
even if only a single object could be achieved, and 
which imposed a studious deference to Mexican 
pride, there would seem to be no possible ground 
for assuming a secret desire for war. The plan, 


. instead, seems a masterly solution of Polk’s diffi- 


Aen gain, no war, and an opposition 


‘silenced. 
Armed with these instructions, Slidell entered 


, upon his mission, one of the most delicate in the 


* Not so strong as imagined, however. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 59 


/ history of American diplomacy. It was his task 
to persuade the bankrupt and tottering govern- 
ment of a proud people that because of its poverty 
it must clutch at any straw to pay its debts. It 
would have taxed the ingenuity of Mephistopheles 
to show this moribund machine a method of yield- 
ing to American demands while yet pampering 
Mexican pride into a belief that loss of territory 
was consistent with national honor. Slidell was 
foredoomed to failure by the inherent impossi- 
bility of inducing an impossible government to 
accept impossible terms. In short, Mexican poli- 
ticlans were too weak to face the realities of; 
things. To yield to Polk’s demands would have } 
meant revolution and overthrow at the hands of a 
people blind to facts as old even as the Texan 
revolution of 1836. To resist those demands| 
might secure at least a temporary popularity. | 
Caught between the devil and the deep sea, the 
Mexican government felt it better to conciliate 
the deep sea and let the rather more distant devil 
look after his own. The entire conduct of the 
Mexican Government in refusing to recognize 
Slidell shows how a weak and corrupt machine, 
daily facing overthrow, toyed and trifled over 
issues of life and death for the very nation, for 
there is no longer room to doubt that on the fate 
of Slidell’s mission depended the existence of 
Mexico as an independent nationality.'® 


*E. G. Bourne, American Historical Review, V. 491; W. E. 
Dodd, Illinois State Historical Journal, July, 1912. 


60 JOHN SLIDELL 


Preliminary to Slidell’s arrival, the United 
States tried to conciliate Mexico by withdrawing 
the fleet from the waters of Vera Cruz. The 
Mexican foreign secretary, Pefia y Pefia, had 
urged this as a proof of sincerity, and the govern- 
ment at Washington had yielded, confiding in 
Black’s opinion that the negotiation would prog- 
ress, as it had the sanction of the Mexican Con- 
gress in secret session. The path was therefore 
supposedly clear when Slidell quietly departed for 
Mexico in late November, 1845, his movements 
being known only to the state department. But no 
sooner had he reached Vera Cruz than he was 
urged not to disembark. Pefia y Pefia declared 
that he had not been expected until January and 
that so critical was the condition of affairs in the 
capital that his appearance there would defeat the 
whole matter.. Worse still, to shift responsibility, 
the Secretary submitted to the Council of Govern- 
ment the final decision as to Slidell’s reception. 
This council was a remarkable body, representing, 
in fact, wheels within wheels, the inner sover- 
eignty of the nation. It voiced the will of the 
Archbishop of Mexico’? and could be counted on 
for definite opposition to the heretics over the 
border. To submit the question of receiving Sli- 
dell to such a body was, therefore, a distinct 
breach of faith. It could give only one decision. 


™ See Polk’s Diary, I. 229, for the political importance of the 
Archbishop. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 61 


Pefia y Pefia’s formal and unqualified refusal 
to treat with Slidell was not delivered until De- 
cember 21, 1845. It was based largely on a 
quibble that his credentials were those of “a minis- 
ter to reside near the Government of Mexico” as 
in ordinary circumstances, whereas Mexico had 
assented only to a special mission “confined to the 
difference in relation to the Texas question.” He 
assured Slidell that “the government itself was 
disposed to arrange all differences,” but that the 
situation was so critical as to demand great cau- 
tion and circumspection. Would the Mexican 
have dared such a subterfuge had Slidell left the 
United States in a public way, and with the Amer- 
ican people in full knowledge of the preliminary 
arrangements for his reception? Was not Polk’s 
anxiety for secrecy from the vigilance of England 
and France in itself subversive of a successful 
mission? Be that as it may, the wily Mexican was 
quick enough to grasp the straw. 

The decision as to whether Slidell should be 
received rested necessarily with the Mexican gov- 
ernment, but the minister omitted no effort which 
could advance his claims. He obeyed instructions 
faithfully. He insisted that all communications 
make use of his official title,’ and, in a final me- 
morial to Pena y Pena, he recapitulated in a most 
convincing way the plan and scope of the mission 


* Executive Document, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 1845-1846. 
Document 196, p. 30. 


62 JOHN SLIDELL 


as originally understood by both governments. 
Writing three days after the rejection of his over- 
tures, he placed stress on the point that the United 
States had proposed an “envoy” “to adjust all the 
questions in dispute between the two powers,’ and 
that Mexico had agreed to receive a “commis- 
sioner” “with full power to settle those disputes 
in a peaceful, reasonable and honorable manner.” 
He concluded by saying that the great object of 
his undertaking had been “by the removal of all 
mutual causes of complaint for the past, and of 
distrust for the future, to revive, confirm, and if 
possible to strengthen these sympathies.”'® Sli- 
dell was undoubtedly piqued at the Mexican re- 
fusal to give him even a chance, and when we 
remember Polk’s extravagant desire for territory 
and the strong reasons for obtaining it without 
war, there appears no reason to question his 
sincerity of purpose and chagrin at defeat. In 
the bitterness of his disappointment he assured 
Buchanan that further negotiations would be prac- 
ticable only when hostile demonstrations should 
have convinced the Mexican people “that our dif- 
ferences must be settled promptly either by nego- 
tiation or [by] the sword.’*° For the present 
there was no alternative but to leave the capital. 


” Executive Document, 29th Congress, Ist Session, 1845-1846. 
Number 196, p. 35. Italics are Slidell’s. 

2 Executive Document, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 1845-1846. 
For the similar views of Santa Anna and Atocha see Polk’s Diary, 
I. 224. February 13, 1846. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 63 


He accordingly withdrew to Jalapa, there to await 
developments. 

Polk’s plans regarding Mexico formed only 
part of a larger whole in an administration con- 
spicuous for its many-sided activity, and the re- 
jection of Slidell may readily be traced to a Mex- 
ican policy of delaying the settlement of the Texas 
boundary until the United States should be too 
deeply involved with England over the Oregon 
question to have time or energy to press her rights 
in the south. Similarly, it was open to belief 
that Polk centered his interest more on Mexico > 
than on Oregon and that he sacrificed his cam- 
paign cry of “54°40’, or Fight” to a protection of 
southern interests. Far better for a southern 
Democratic President, given his choice of only 
part of a loaf, to prefer that part which would 
most benefit his own section and would least en- 
danger the Union. Mexico planned shrewdly, but 
she made her mistake in counting too strongly on 
our possible difficulties with England. As Slidell 
himself wrote’ from his “observatory” at Jalapa 
respecting the government which had superseded 
Flenrera’s, >). my reception . - . will mainly 
be controlled by the aspect of the Oregon question. 
Should our difficulties with Great Britain continue 
to present a prospect of war with that power, there 
will be but a very faint hope of a change of policy 


™ Executive Document, 29th Congress, Ist Session, 1845-1846. 
Number 196, p. 47. February 6, 1846, 


< 


64 JOHN SLIDELL 


here.” Under these circumstances, Slidell’s inabil- 
ity to secure an audience in no sense represented a 


) personal failure, and Buchanan’s replies to his 


periodical reports breathe not the slightest hint of 
reproach.”” 

From his new coign of vantage at Jalapa, Slidell 
was able to render good service to his government 
as an observer of Mexican affairs. From here he 
noted a situation developing which was later to 
place within our grasp all northern and eastern 
Mexico.” Yucatan, in particular, he regarded as 
the corner-stone of the new empire. 

News of Slideii’s treatment caused the return 
of the Gulf Squadron to Mexican waters, and in 
this movement, combined with the advance of 
General Taylor to the left bank of the Rio Grande, 
Slidell recognized measures likely to have a salu- 
tary influence. Internal conditions also seemed to 
be grouping themselves favorably to his ends. 
Alanan and Paredes, the new Mexican military 
leaders, were suspected of monarchical tendencies, 
and their downfall was assured. In such a maze 
of embarrassments, it was natural for the leaders 
to shift responsibility upon the shoulders of a dic- 
tator, but the people were opposed to such a 
course, and Slidel! anticipated that they would 
welcome intervention by the United States as a 
deliverance from prospective tyranny, a natural 


2 Tbid., p. 45. January 20, 1846. 
23 An outcome only prevented by Trist’s mission. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 65 


return to a friendship found useful in the original 
war for Mexican independence. Best of all, the 
fiscal situation had reached an acute stage. Ma- 
zatlan, the second port in Mexico, had declared 
against Paredes and had cut off thereby a great 
revenue indispensable to a leader who would retain 
the loyalty of his troops or who would avert Euro- 
pean interference on the pretext of long overdue 
interest on bonds and other loans.** Altogether 
Slidell regarded the situation as auspicious. ‘My 
note,” he wrote Buchanan on March 1, 1846,75 
“will be presented at the most propitious moment 
that could have been selected. All attempts to 
effect a loan have completely failed.” That this 
hopefulness was shared by others is plain from 
Commodore Conner’s letter to General Taylor, 
written from his flagship off Vera Cruz, March 
Zeero 1) Var eSiidelly is “still at Jalapa; and 
though unlikely as it may appear, I have it from 
very good authority that it is probable he will yet 
be received by the Mexican Government.” 

In a sense this was the parting of the ways. 
The outlook did not again appear so hopeful, and, 
in an attempt to estimate the forces at work, it 
becomes increasingly difficult to determine just 
how sincere the government’s desire remained to 
treat with Mexico, at any rate to treat on the 


“Executive Document, 29th Congress, Ist Session, 1845-1846. 
Number 196, p. 53. 


qlbid., Dp: 58. 
* Ibid., p. 106. 


66 JOHN SLIDELL 


original basis on which Slidell had been dis- 
patched. One feels that the mission from now on 
till its termination existed only to preserve ap- 
pearances. The American people were to be 
taught to recognize themselves as martyrs to the 
criminal delay, the wanton folly, of an impotent 
government. This rather pharisaical programme 
demanded that we maintain a show of anxiety to 
treat. Slidell’s mission had acquired a new use- 
fulness, a by-product, so to speak, of its original 
purpose, a significance which Buchanan’s final in- 
structions” clearly recognized. “ . . . inthe pres- 
ent distracted condition of Mexico, it is of impor- 
tance that we should have an able and discreet 
agent in that country to watch the progress of 
events.” The excuse for remaining was entirely 
plausible, since governments in Mexico were 
short-lived, and what one refused another might 
grant. To rest content with the refusal of one 
would even be dangerous as “It would be difficult 
to satisfy the American people that all had 
been done which ought to have been done to avoid 
the necessity of resorting to hostilities,” and Con- 
gress might refuse to support the active measures 
which Polk proposed to institute upon Slidell’s 
final return.”® 
To confuse this new phase of the mission with 
its original conception is unhistorical. New times 


*" Executive Document, 29th Congress, Ist Session, 1845-1846. 
Number 196, p. 56. 


sulbzd. py o5: 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 67 


demanded new methods, but even yet there lin- 

gered traces of good will toward a republic which 

Buchanan so frequently described as “‘distracted.”’ 

Moore’s edition of the works of Buchanan in- 

cludes a letter, which was judiciously expurgated 

before it was submitted to Congress, in which 

Buchanan directed Slidell to inform Paredes “in 

some discreet manner that the United States were 

both able and willing to relieve his administration 

from pecuniary embarrassment.’*® ‘The only re- 

turn to be exacted was justice and a settlement of 

the boundary. There is reason to feel that this , 
attempted bribe was a genuine move in a last 
effort to secure peaceably a tract which we had \ 
now resolved to gain at all hazards. It was a case 

of natural evolution. Thwarted desire had grown 

into determination. Determination, in turn, led to 

action, but it is unjust to read the aftermath, the 

Mexican War and the peace settlement, into the 

original motives of the Slidell mission. These) 
were undoubtedly peaceable, and only the blunders | 
of Mexican officials changed their import. 

The new drift of events was clear to Slidell, and 
in it he found a compensation for the failure of 
his mission as originally contemplated. He had, 
become a necessary link in a chain which was ey 
punish his adversaries. He must remain at his 
post so as “‘to place us in the strongest moral posi- 


*® Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, V1. 403. March 12, 
1846. 


68 JOHN SLIDELL 


tion before our own people and the world by ex- 
hausting every possible means of conciliation.’’*° 

The mission had become supremely useful 
in its derivative possibilities. Primary results 
Slidell no longer anticipated.** “We shall never 
be able to treat with her on fair terms,” he in- 
formed Buchanan, “until she has been taught to 
respect us.” A four months’ residence in Mexico 
had shown him what Colonel Atocha, confidential 
agent of Santa Anna in Washington during a 
part of this period, had originally foretold, that 


_ Mexico required an object lesson before she would 


~ 


take the United States seriously.** 

While Slidell was in Mexico itself, Polk was 
corresponding with the exiled Santa Anna. It 
was a match of wits in which the Spanish mind 
won first place. Santa Anna was using the 
United States as a tool to aid in his return to 
Mexico, and to win Polk’s support he was will- 
ing to declare for a boundary which would give 
us everything north and east of the “Western 
Texas line and the Colorado of the West down 
through the bay of San Francisco,’’** subject to a 
payment of thirty millions. In these communica- 
tions the go-between was Colonel Atocha, an 


® Executive Document, 29th Congress, lst Session, 1845-1846. 
Number 196, p. 57. 

calibad. 

2 For very favorable letters regarding Colonel Atocha, see 
Memorial of Alexander J. Atocha to the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States, pp. 15, 16. 

* Polk's Diary, 1. 224. February 13, 1846. Report of Colonel 
Atocha. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 69 


American citizen who had done a great banking 
business at Mexico where he had exceptional op- 
portunities to sound the depths of fiscal and gen- 
eral management there in vogue, who spoke the 
truth when he assured Polk that a display of force 
could alone bring the Mexicans to reason.** 
Atocha’s business had been with leaders. He 
knew their venality. He was undoubtedly correct 
in his view that Paredes, Almonte, and Santa 
Anna were all willing for an arrangement which 
would settle many difficulties and direct a flow of 
gold into their pockets.*® What he failed to esti- 
mate was the temper of the common people, their 
patriotism, their contempt for the foreigner, their 

lindness to painful truths. If Polk’s government 


i 


ad had to deal only with leaders uninfluenced by. a 


the will of the people, Slidell’s mission would have} 
been a success.°®° On the other hand, the leaders 
had done much to stimulate this very fanaticism 
which was hindering their own plans. The 
people, originally misled, were finally demanding 
a course of action which their leaders knew would 
be fatal. It was a case of mob-rule—democracy 
gone to seed—in a land which could not compre- 
hend the rudiments of self-government. To some 
extent Slidell had anticipated this rock of stum- 


* Polk’s Diary, 1. 228-9. February 16, 1846. 

® Thid. 

See Polk’s Diary. I. 303 for a “slush fund” for use among 
the leaders, Also I. 229. 


70 JOHN SLIDELL 


bling. ‘They have stimulated popular prejudice 
to a degree that may render any appearance of 
disposition to treat with us fatal to the new ad- 
ministration,” he wrote Buchanan before he left 
the United States.*7 This idea was fully de- 
veloped in Ellis’s letters to John Quincy Adams 
appearing in the Boston Atlas during 1845.%* 
From this point of view, not Polk nor any other 
one person was the mainspring behind the Mexi- 
can War, but the unrestrained democracy of nine- 
teenth century Mexico, which was to repeat the 
experiment of a similarly unrestrained democracy 
of antiquity. Call Mexico ‘Athens,’ and we have 
fin ‘Peloponnesian War,’ waged by a people 





blind to facts and ignorant of underlying con- 
ditions. 

By April Slidell’s position was seen to be utterly 
hopeless, and the time had come for Polk to adjust 
his plans accordingly. He had determined upon 
war, but felt it unwise to precipitate congressional 
action until Slidell should have received his pass- 
ports and left the country.*® Though no great 
admirer of Calhoun, he saw that it was best to 
take him into his confidence before proceeding to 
extremities. This he did on April 18th, 1846, and _ 
showed a bit of personal animus toward Calhoun 


“Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, VI. 265. 


% Printed in Letters upon the Annexation of Texas Addressed to 
Hon. John Quincy Adams, 1845. 


| ® Polk’s Diary, I. 327. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 71 


by holding British influence partly responsible for 
Slidell’s failure to be received.*° 

With the return of Slidell from Mexico, his mis- | 
sion may properly be said to have terminated. rH 
it really aimed at the peaceful absorption of mosty/ 
of northern Mexico, it had failed; if it aimed at~ 
justifying us before the world, it had slight success, 
because the world as a whole from then till now 
has regarded the United States as the aggressor 
in an unjust war for conquest; if it aimed at salv- 
ing the American conscience, it succeeded much 
more widely than many have admitted, because the 
war with Mexico was not the unpopular brigand- 
age which Lowell’s Bigelow Papers would have 
us believe.** It was no doubt this third aspect of 
the mission that won Polk’s approval, for on sev- 
eral occasions he championed Slidell against the 
personal hostility of Colonel Thomas Hart Ben- 
ton, assuring him that Slidell’s conduct of the 
mission had been perfectly satisfactory.” 

The demands which Slidell was to have made 
were small compared to the possibilities which the 
war was to place within our reach, and, when the 
time came for treaty-making, the opposition saw 
a chance to embarrass the government by insist- 
ing that the Slidell instructions be made public. 
Polk refused, and in this he was sustained by his 


* Polk’s Diary, I. 337. It will be remembered that Calhoun had 
opposed the radicalism of Polk’s election promise. 


“Proof of this lies in the muster rolls from the northern states. 
“” Polk’s Diary, II. 262, 268. 


72 JOHN SLIDELL 


whole cabinet*® and by leading senators.** There 
followed a ‘test of the prerogative’ in which Polk 
appealed to the precedent of Washington’s refusal 
to exhibit the correspondence bearing upon the Jay 
Treaty. The administration carried the point, 
and it was not until six months later, when peace 
had been concluded and the issue over the instruc- 
tions was dead, that Polk sent them to be em- 
balmed in the customary government documents. 
He transmitted the proceedings only when “the 
reason for withholding them .. . no longer 
existed.) <2 
A final judgment upon the underlying motive 
of Slidell’s mission must assume that its original 
(PUEDES was to usher in Manifest Destiny with as 
‘little friction as possible. Conditions at the Mex- 
ican capital proved such as to render futile any 
‘such hope. But Manifest Destiny bides not for 
men or measures. If peace be unavailing, she uses 
war. Here the mission served as a burnt offering. 
Slidell was to be immolated on the altar of his 
country’s wrongs. His importance in this latter 
aspect has obscured what, it may be said with con- 
fidence, was the primary object of his mission, 
namely to keep the peace. 
Whether a success or a failure in itself, the mis- 
sion forms a most interesting link in that long 
chain which has bound together the East and the 


“ Tbid., III. 289. January 8, 1848. 
* Tbid., I11. 309-310. 
“ Polk’s Diary, IV. 4. 


THE MISSION TO MEXICO 73 


West, the North and the South of this country. 

Viewed from the broad standpoint of national 

advance, Slidell was a press agent of progress. | 
Viewed in the light of personal success, Slidell 

had broadened an experience which was later to 

bring him forward as the foremost diplomat of 

the Confederate States and to secure for him the 

post of minister to France. Here, again, a web of 

circumstance was to frustrate the most brilliant 

efforts, but that is another chapter. 


CHAPTER: 
PROGRESS 


HILE Slidell was still in Mexico, in the 
interval between the overthrow and the 
constitution of the two governments with which 
he attempted to negotiate, Alexander Slidell Mac- 
kenzie addressed a communication to Nicholas P. 
Trist at the state department, full of pride in his 
brother’s opportunities and achievements. “Know- 
ing his energy self possession and ready tact I feel 
convinced that he will surmount the difficulties 
that may impede his progress to his destination; 
and although the new revolution in a country so 
fruitful of them may be looked on as an untoward 
event, yet I trust it will only occasion a loss of 
time without frustrating ultimately the publicly 
alleged objects of his mission.” He observed that 
no party in Mexico had anything to gain by war, 
and predicted that revolutionists under pretense of 
guarding their country’s integrity, in reality were 
motivated only by a greed for the millions offered 
as the price of that country’s dismemberment.’ 
The family solidarity indicated in the preceding 
letter is further demonstrated by a letter from 


*Nicholas P. Trist Papers. Library of Congress. Alexander 
Slidell Mackenzie to Trist. Tarrytown, January 2, 1846. 


PROGRESS 75 


John Slidell, written shortly after his return from 
Mexico, to Andrew J. Donelson, nephew to Presi- 
dent Jackson, mentioning that “It has always been 
to me a source of deep regret not to have had some 
evidence under the hand of our good old chief of 
his approbation of the cause of my brother in the 
affair of the Somers. Would you, my dear Sir, 
have any objection to state what you know on this 
subject. I intend in a few days to make an appeal 
to the President for the employment of my brother 
and such a document would have great weight 
with him.’” 

Other letters of the summer of 1846 indicate 
Slidell as interested in more appointments than 
that of his brother® and by no means indifferent 
to the progress of events in Mexico, whither he 
stood ready for instant return should the Presi- 
dent so ordain.* But the order was destined never 
to come, and for Slidell the permanent result of 


his mission to Mexico was to consist not in diplo- 


matic reputation, but in a personal friendship 
destined to affect profoundly his entire subsequent 
career. One of the most significant.friendships 
in American history grew infact out of the off- 
cial relations between the commissioner to Mexico 


? Andrew J. Donelson Papers. Library of Congress. Slidell 
to Donelson. Washington, May 13, 1846. 

* Nicholas P. Trist Papers. Library of Congress. Slidell to 
Trist. Saratoga Springs, New York, July 20, 1846. 

*Tbid., Same to Same New York, September 22, 1846. 


76 JOHN SLIDELL 


and the secretary of state to whom his reports 
were made. The mission itself was a failure. But 
the conviction on Slidell’s part that he had earned 
the approval and friendship of Buchanan did 
much from this time on to influence the career 
of both. 

Slidell received written evidence that the ad- 
ministration was mindful of his services. In Oc- 
tober, 1846, almost six months after his return 
from Mexico, Commodore Conner, in command 
of United States forces in the Gulf of Mexico, 
was instructed to inform Slidell immediately of 
any disposition on the part of Mexico to resume 
negotiations, to the end that Slidell might have 
leisure to prepare anew for his mission, in ad- 
vance of more tardy instructions from Washing- 
ton.® And when, in 1847, Slidell formally re- 
signed all connection with the mission, the reply 
from Buchanan was friendly rather than formal. 
Sin: . 

I have received your despatch of the 26th ultimo, ten- 
dering your resignaticn of the appointment of Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Mexican 
Republic, and have submitted the same to the President. 

In answer, I am directed by him to inform you that he 
will no longer resist your own wishes, and that your resig- 
nation is accordingly accepted. He cannot part from you, 
however, without expressing his obligations for the man- 


ner in which, although at the sacrifice of your private 
interests, you complied with his earnest request to retain 


*Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, VII. 90. October 1, 
1846. Buchanan to Com. D. Conner. 


PROGRESS 77 


your appointment and to hold yourself in readiness to re- 
turn to Mexico should an opportunity offer within a 
reasonable time for opening negotiations with the Govern- 
ment of that Republic. This conduct deserves special 
commendation from the fact that it was wholly disinter- 
ested, because whilst acceding to his wishes, you declared 
you would receive no compensation during the period you 
should thus be kept in suspense. 

I am also instructed by the President to reiterate the 
assurance that your entire conduct whilst employed upon 
the mission voluntarily tendered to you, was marked with 
prudence, firmness, and signal ability under circumstances 
of uncommon difficulty, and has received his cordial ap- 
probation. In all these sentiments of the President it 
affords me great pleasure to say that I heartily concur. 

Your obedient servant, 
James Buchanan. 


Slidell, for his part, had, meanwhile, come to re- 
gard Buchanan as presidential timber. Ina letter 
of April 9, 1816, advising Buchanan to refuse the 
ermine of the supreme bench, he is already hint- 
ing at greater things to come,’ striking for the 
first time a note of leadership and guidance, al- 
most of dominance, and constituting himself a 
political manager for Buchanan. His own less 
exalted ambition he openly states. ‘“‘Were I so 
disposed, I think I might play the Senator for a 
few weeks to fill Barrow’s vacancy, but the posi- 
tion would be a false one and would not advance 
my prospects for the only object of my ambition, a 
seat in that body of a more permanent tenure.” 


*Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, VII. 211-212. Feb- 
ruary 9, 1847. 
*New Orleans, April 9, 1846. 


78 JOHN SLIDELL 


The question arose whether to accept a practically 
certain election to the lower house or to play for 
the more alluring but more problematical opening 
in the senate. On this point, Buchanan’s own 
advice was solicited.® 

Buchanan apparently dwelt on the hostility felt 
toward Slidell by certain senators. The latter re- 
plied in dismay at the thought of there being 
several. Upon reflection, he could think of “that 
miserable imbecile Henry Johnson” and Thomas 
Hart Benton as his only imaginable enemies, the 
latter because of some remarks made at the time 
when Slidell withdrew his support from Van 
Buren. He entreated Buchanan to name these 
enemies,? and then went on to assure him that 
neither he nor his friends would feel resentment 
if the appointment to Mexico should be given to 
another. 

Reminiscent of Mexico, Slidell passed on a 
choice morsel concerning Calhoun, to the effect 
that the great nullifier, who had denounced the 
Slidell mission when it was first projected as “ill- 
advised and premature,’ was himself so eager to 
undertake the mission that he delegated a friend 
to make overtures for it to Polk, only to learn that 
Slidell had been previously appointed. The letter 
containing this Calhoun anecdote further ex- 
presses a hope that Buchanan himself will hold the 


* New Orleans, January 6, 1847. 
®* New Orleans, January 29, 1847. 


PROGRESS 79 


next mission to Mexico, mentions General Cass 
respectfully, and intimates that if Pennsylvania 
could only be brought to relinquish her tariff 
heresies, Buchanan would be the logical choice of 
the party in 1848.*° In November, Slidell is even 
more specific. He declares that Louisiana Demo- 
crats favor a northern man who opposes the Wil- 
mot proviso, and that ‘“‘a vast majority of our lead- 
ing politicians look to you as the man of their 
choice.” If Buchanan is to be available in the 
fullest sense, however, opposition in Pennsylvania 
must be conciliated, the more so as Walker is by 
no means friendly to the aspirations of Dallas.** 

But 1848 was not to realize the hope of either 
manager or candidate. It was, for Slidell, a 
troubled year, as his grip on Louisiana itself 
seemed to be weakening. He failed by a rather 
narrow margin of obtaining the coveted seat in 
the senate, his refusal to support Taylor being as- 
signed as the cause. He felt, nevertheless, that. 
even at the cost of defeat, the effort to avert a 
Democratic fusion with Whigs was well worth 
while. He and his friends voted for Soulé, for 
Slidell was not the man to split his party, what- 
ever might be his eventual attitude toward split- 
ting the Union. But henceforth Slidell was the 
determined and implacable foeman of Soulé for 
control in Louisiana.’ Baltimore, moreover, was 

* New Orleans, March 21, 1847. 


* New Orleans, November 13, 1847. 
* New Orleans, February 4, 1848. 


80 JOHN SLIDELL 


no more encouraging than Baton Rogue; the 
Louisiana vote was divided between Buchanan 
and Cass. And Slidell, though invited, refused to 
cast the ballot for the state. As he sorrowfully 
wrote Buchanan, “T need not tell you how much I 
feel this, but must bear it with the best grace I 
may.’ *8 

The Buchanan papers contain no further com- 
munication from Slidell for over a year, though 
there seems no reason to suppose that the corre- 
spondence lasped for any such length of time. It 
reopened with a social, rather than political, letter 
from Tarrytown on the Hudson, mentioning that 
Slidell and his family were guests of the former’s 
brother-in-law, Commodore Matthew C. Perry, 
previous to their departure for Saratoga, and 
urging Buchanan to pay a promised visit to New 
Orleans in the coming winter.** 

One of the qualities which distinguished Slidell 
as a shrewd and able politician was his keen per- 
ception that under the increasing strain between 
the North and the South that candidate stood the 
best chance of victory who, beyond making it plain 
that he was “safe,” least committed himself on 
debatable subjects. For that reason, Slidell’s at- 
tempt to dissuade Buchanan from all thought of 
the governorship in Pennsylvania deserves quota- 
tion at length. It is a searching criticism of 


* Baltimore, May 22, 1848. 
“ Tarrytown, N. Y., June 23, 1849. 


PROGRESS 81 


American politics at the time and a revelation of 
the clear mind of the writer. 


I think there are many reasons why for the present you 
should not voluntarily place yourself in a position where 
you will be called upon to express your opinions on the 
subject of slavery in the territories. they are sufficiently 
well known in the South to make your name acceptable 
there, & if you abstain from any active participation in 
the question now, the Free Soilers, who, I am sorry to 
see, comprise the immense majority of the non-slave- 
holding states. will when the matter is disposed of enter- 
tain no hostility towards anyone, who has not come im- 
mediately into conflict with them in the final struggle. you 
see I have not lost my hopes of yet seeing you in the 
White House. There is not a man of our party whose 
chances are as good as yours, & I cannot believe that the 
Whig party will hold together after the first session of 
Congress.!5 


Slidell’s attitude toward Calhoun has already 
been indicated. Toward Clay, Whig though he 
was, he felt a kindlier sentiment, and in August, 
1849, he confided to Buchanan that, popular im- 
pressions to the contrary, Clay no longer held any 
presidential aspirations, but that if opportunity 
arose he would come out against Taylor, whom he 
unquestionably had in mind in “constantly speak- 
ing of the incompatibility of statesmanship and 
soldiership.”*® In Slidell’s opinion, the day of 
Webster, Clay, and Calhoun was nearing its end. 
The future belonged not with the ‘Elder States- 
men’ but with rising stars who could see the mani- 


* Saratoga Springs, July 25, 1849. 
* Saratoga Springs, August 11, 1849. 


82 JOHN SLIDELL 


fest destiny of slavery and the necessity of its ful- 
filment. Thus, almost three years before such a 
prediction could be put to the test, Slidell in- 
formed Buchanan that “The next democratic can- 
didate cannot be Cass neither can he be a free 
soiler. I do not find with either section any objec- 
tion to you & I now consider it as certain as any 
event can be that you are to be our standard 
bearer.”’’* The opportunity to promote the inter- 
ests of Buchanan was welcomed by Slidell as a 
selfish gain for himself. By so doing he might be 
able to slough off an apathy felt for two years 
past and, through the excitement of the contest, 
returned to “a tone of mind which I thought I 
had lost forever.”?® 
To elect Buchanan, Slidell felt, would mean to 
; render doubly certain the attainment of Cuba. 
Accordingly, late in 1849, he visited the island in 
order to gain impressions at first hand. To this 
visit he made at the time, however, only a passing 
allusion. The immediate occasion of a letter from 
that island was Buchanan’s forthcoming visit to 
New Orleans. With cautious forethought, he 
raised the question of whether Buchanan would 
desire a public reception. “You must decide how 
far it will be advisable to accept or decline any 
public invitations which might perhaps render it 
embarrassing to avoid touching upon slave[ry].’’*® 
* New York, October 14, 1849. 


* Ibid. 
* Havana, December 7, 1849. 


PROGRESS 83 


The slavery question was pushing on to its 
temporary solution in the compromise of 1850.! 
And, in view of Slidell’s influence in Louisiana 
and of his growing weight in national affairs, his 
attitude toward the crisis was of distinct impor- 
tance. In February, 1850, he informed Buchanan 
that when they met, he would have much to say 
on the subject of Cuba. For the present, how- 
ever, and “until the present excitement respect- 
ing slavery shall have subsided’’—he had no hope 
that it would ever be entirely abated—Cuba would 
better remain in the background. He then turned 
to a denunciation of third parties and their dupes, 
Taylor Democrats in particular, and, while hoping 
to reclaim the misguided followers, contended that 
their leaders should be inexorably read out of the 
party. “They will be much more harmless acting 
openly with our adversaries than in pretended af- 
filiation with the democracy.””° He requested of 
Buchanan information as to political currents at 
Washington, and declared his own hostility to a 
convention in the South. An attack on slavery in 
the District of Columbia would warrant a firm 
stand, but “I have not considered the passage of 
the Wilmot Proviso, as sufficient provocation for 
the extreme and disastrous remedy of separation 
and it has never been my habit to make declar- 
ations which I have not fully intended to carry out 
to the letter. Pray let me have your advice on the 


79New Orleans, February 5, 1850. 


84 JOHN SLIDELL 


subject. Perhaps the time has already arrived 
when it becomes necessary for Southern men to 
pass the true line of resistance: to secure them- 
selves from further aggression.”’*? 

In the afterlight of history, an inquiry from 
Slidell to Buchanan as to the timeliness of seces- 
sion in 1850 has a peculiar interest. Buchanan 
apparently confirmed Slidell’s own views that the 
ultima ratio was uncalled for, and the death of 
Taylor further encouraged Slidell to hope that 
“the chances of the settlement of our sectional 
differences will be improved by Filmore’s acces- 
sion.”’** Accordingly, in the autumn, Slidell con- 
tinued his labors in Buchanan’s behalf. After 
visiting Buchanan at Lancaster, Slidell urged him 
to spend some time in New York, where he was 
frequently mentioned as a more available candi- 
date than General Cass.** He stressed the impor- 
tance of establishing a New York paper pledged 
to the Buchanan candidacy, for “taking it for 
granted that you are sure of Pennsylvania, with 
New York every thing is safe.” This notwith- 
standing the party dissension in Louisiana created 
by Mr. Soulé which was likely to drive that state 
into the hands of the Whigs.** 

By 1851 the national campaign was assuming 
more definite outlines, and Slidell adopted a dis- 


7* New Orleans, February 5, 1850. 
* Saratoga Springs, July 13, 1850. 
5 New York, October 9, 1850. 

* New Orleans, December 16, 1850. 


PROGRESS 85 


tinctly managerial tone. He assured Buchanan of 
almost unanimous support from the South but em-+ 
phasized the New York vote as pivotal. He en- 
treated him to overcome “‘the dread of locomotion” 
and to visit Saratoga, the rendezvous of politi- 
cians. An understanding with Marcy was ot 
prime importance. The electoral vote of New 
York would probably go to the Whigs, but they 
must be kept so busy at home that their power for 
mischief elsewhere would be shorn. Louisiana 
was now safe; so, too, the rest of the Southwest. 
“You are the only man who can unite the conflict- 
ing divisions of the Southern democracy. The 
Whigs will I think carry the State elections this 
year but we will be all right in November 752.” 
The communication closed with a renewed en- 
treaty to Buchanan to be up and stirring. With 
a guile not easy to resist, he reminded Buchanan 
that “Some men under similar circumstances 
would do better to remain at home. but you (you 
will not suspect me of flattering) can only gain by 
being seen & known.””® 

Illness in his family almost prevented Slidell’s 
trip North in the summer of 1851. But he did go 
to Saratoga, and from there he outlined the state 
of politics as he estimated it. New York, he felt, 
would cast a Whig ballot, “but thank God we can 
do without it.”** Marcy could be counted as a 


> New Orleans, May 9, 1851, 
7° Saratoga Springs, August 8, 1851. 


86 JOHN SLIDELL 


friend, though the precise extent of assistance to 
be expected from him might be subject to doubt. 
Robert J. Walker professed the friendliest senti- 
ments “& yet in spite of myself & with a feeling 
that I am doing him injustice, I cannot divest 
myself of a certain degree of distrust.” Walker’s 
help Slidell thought really as important as Marcy’s, 
and he strongly recommended that Buchanan ex- 
change views with him. “TI consider his advocacy 
of your nomination all important.” Buchanan, it 
seems, had felt that any attempt by himself as an 
outsider to influence New York politics might do 
more harm than good. To Slidell, however, this 
hands-off policy seemed to have outlived its use- 
fulness. New York being the keystone of the 
situation, he almost wished himself once more a 
New Yorker, not that he was vain enough to think 
his influence so far reaching, “but as things are & 
possibly will be for several months, a strong will 
with some tact & discretion could effect a great 
deal.” In this wholly justified and even modest 
statement, Slidell has left us one of the few self 
estimates which we have. His was, indeed, a 
strong will. And if the clearness of his vision 
and the definiteness of his aims and goals create 
the impression of a personality controlled more by 
head than by heart, it can not be denied that he 
possessed both tact and discretion.** 


” Saratoga Springs, August 8, 1851. 


PROGRESS 87 


The project of establishing a Buchanan news- , _ 


paper in New York took shape more definitely on 
Slidell’s arrival in the city. He inquired whether 
Buchanan would approve General Cushing as 
editor ; he admitted that his integrity was dubious 
but asserted that his talents were beyond dispute 
and that self-interest would hold him in line. As 
to financing the paper, Slidell’s nephew, August 
Belmont, was warmly interested, and “he has 
already received assurances from a number of the 
wealthiest merchants of cooperation.’”’** Thus ‘in- 
ternational bankers’ and the money power were 
early espousing the candidacy of the conservative 
Buchanan. But Slidell drew a sharp distinction 
between the wealth which he was able to control 
and the predatory wealth enlisted in the Douglas 
interest. “It is confined to one clique not very 
numerous, but active & unscrupulous, the Ocean 
mail contractors,” at whose head stood the sinister 
figure of George Law.” 

Slidell concluded this summary of the situation 
in New York by hoping that Buchanan had on no 
account failed to write Marcy.*® Buchanan, for 
once, did arouse himself to the “dreaded locomo- 
tion” and interviewed Marcy in person. Slidell, 
who had meanwhile returned to New Orleans, 
first learned of this through the newspapers and 
wrote Buchanan in some alarm at his failure to 

* New York, September 29, 1851. 
* Ibid. 
» Ibid. 


88 JOHN SLIDELL 


learn the details of the interview from his friend, 
Belmont. It was greatly to be feared that Marcy 
might decide to enter the race himself. As for 
Louisiana, the Whigs, as anticipated, were in con- 
trol of the Legislature, but all would be well when 
it came to the choosing of delegates for the Balti- 
more Convention.** 

But the high water mark of hope for the 1852 
nomination had already been reached. New York 
was pivotal, and New York depended upon 
Marcy. Marcy, it seemed more and more clear, 
would be his own candidate, and Slidell indulged 
in one of the few complaints he ever addressed to 
Buchanan. 


I fear that the favorable moment for action in New 
York has been irretrievably lost. Marcy was in such a 
mood last summer that if you had met you would in all 
probability have secured his active cooperation. he may 
yet have it in his power by a strong effort to turn the 
scale in your favor. but the chances are that he will not 
be convinced of the impossibility of his own nomination 
until too late. If you have however a strong willed & 
unanimous delegation from Pennsylvania you can do 
without New York. 


Not friendship alone, but a conviction that 
Buchanan was the moderate best fitted to heal a 
divided country prompted Slidell to champion the 
cause. For Slidell, strange as subsequent events 
make it appear, was himself a moderate. His 


31 New Orleans, November 17, 1851. 
* New Orleans, December 27, 1851. 


PROGRESS 89 


position is well stated in a letter to Howell Cobb, 
of January 28, 1852, in which he takes a decided 
fling at fire eaters. 


“ce 


as to the Rhetts, Yanceys, etc., the sooner and 
the. more effectually we get rid of them the better, and if 
in the Baltimore convention we adopt a resolution de- 
precating all modification of the fugitive slave law, it will 
relieve us at the same time of the Van Burens, Blairs, etc. 
With such a declaration, I have no doubt of the election 
of our candidate; but I would infinitely prefer defeat to a 
victory purchased by truckling to the abolitionists or dis- 
unionists. As to the idea of peaceable secession, I con- 
sider it one of those harmless follies which can only derive 
importance from being seriously discussed, and would 
leave those who entertain it to the quiet enjoyment of the 
abstraction. . . . While I have strong preferences 
for Mr. Buchanan, as well on account of personal intimacy 
as of my conviction of his superior fitness and availability, 
I need scarcely say that I have still more at heart the 
reorganization of our party on sound principles, and that 
if such a consummation can be more surely attained by 
another nomination I am prepared to sustain it, and that 
whoever may be the candidate, he will have my cordial 
support. I say whoever may be the candidate because I 
feel sure that only a sound Union Democrat can by any » 
possibility be nominated at Baltimore.?% 


Douglas, it would seem, was not included by 
Slidell as ‘a sound Union Democrat” upon whom 
the nomination might possibly alight, for in letters 
to Buchanan, written in February and March of 
1852 and discriminating among the rivals for 


% Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Toombs, Stephens, Cobb, Correspond- 
ence, Slidell to Cobb. New Orleans, January 28, 1852. 


90 JOHN SLIDELL 


honors, Slidell made much the same distinction be- 
tween Cass and Douglas that Sumner later drew 
between them.** He found an unexpected strength 
lined up for Cass, drawn from “sound, reliable 
men who have only at heart the triumph of their 
principles,” whereas the advocates of Douglas 
were for the most part “trading politicians & ad- 
venturers, with a very slight sprinkling of well 
meaning men who think it for the interest of the 
party to cast off old leaders & select a chief from 
the young democracy.” To Slidell it was no rec- 
ommendation for Douglas that Soulé should have 
enlisted under his banner.*® And the purchase 
by Douglas partisans of the New Orleans Delta 
and four country papers in Louisiana alone indi- 
cated to Slidell a strong campaign chest in the 
North. “If such men as have originated the 
Douglas movement could succeed in imposing him 
upon us as the nominee of the great democratic 
party, I should despair of the republic & although 
I shall be cautious in expressing such an opinion, 
no consideration could induce me to support him.” 
To Cass on the contrary, in spite of serious doubts 
whether he could be elected, Slidell would extend 
an “honest support.” He would do as much for 
Butler, Marcy, or others, “‘but I still entertain the 
hope, which indeed all my letters from Washing- 


* A.C. McLaughlin, Lewis Cass, pp. 319-320. 
°° New Orleans, February 26, 1852. 


PROGRESS 91 


ton warrant, that you will obtain the nomination, 
when I can go into the camp con amore.” In Vir- 
ginia Douglas seemed to be the only serious com- 
petitor, and in Georgia, by Cobb’s account, Buch- 
anan was the strongest candidate, though Cobb’s 
own good will was subject to doubt.*® 

The next mention of Douglas was more 
friendly, due to Slidell’s growing conviction that 
his following in Louisiana was less menacing than 
had been at first supposed, the Douglas men pre- 
ferring Buchanan to Cass and being likely, after 
the first ballot, to vote accordingly unless over- 
ruled by Douglas himself. Meanwhile, Buchanan 
occupied a similar position with the followers of 
Cass, who were grateful for his moral support 
against Douglas. But predictions were idle until 
it should be known who were to be the delegates 
at Baltimore. If Buchanan approved, Slidell 
would himself go to Baltimore, as Belmont wished 
it decidedly, and he really might be able to bring 
some final pressure on the wavering Marcy." 

How chimerical was this notion of converting 
Marcy into a Buchanan lieutenant one perceives 
in a letter of John N. L. Pruyn to Marcy from 
Washington at this very time, May, 1852. Pruyn 
was a New Yorker who had been scouting for his 
chief. The report follows: “—Rowley of La says 


* New Orleans, March 19, 1852. 
*™ New Orleans, April 15, 1852. 


92 JOHN SLIDELL 


that when he reached home last fall, he found 
matters so far advanced, that it was too late to do 
anything for you there—Butler’s Delegation will 
not probably remain for Cass very long, and if 
not, I hope some of them will come on later to 
WOU” 

Following a more practical line of attack, Slidell 
reminded Buchanan that the Whigs were attack- 
ing his slavery record by accusing him of op- 
posing, previous to the compromise of 1820, the 
admission of Missouri as a slave state. Slidell 
considered this a venial sin, if committed, and one 
long since atoned for by Buchanan’s priority over 
all other northern men, Democrats or Whigs, in 
the defence of southern rights. But he was under 
an impression that somewhere he had seen the 
Missouri story denied, and if the facts warranted 
it, he thought it would be advisable for Buchanan 
to refute it officially. He repeated his alarm 
for Louisiana if Filmore should be the Whig 
nominee.*® 

A month later, and the high hopes built on years 
of planning were dashed. Their obituary may be 
quoted in full, for the intimate picture it gives of 
the aims, motives, and scruples of Slidell as a 
politician. 

* New Orleans, May 22, 1852. 


% William L. Marcy Papers. Library of Congress. Folio 24. 
John N. L. Pruyn to W. L. Marcy, Washington, May 28, 1852. 


PROGRESS 93 


New Orleans, 23 June, 1852. 
My dear Mr. Buchanan, 


I will not attempt to express to you all the annoyance , 
& mortification I have felt at your not having obtained 
the nomination at Baltimore. It is the only political ques- 
tion in which for several years I have felt any warm 
interest. my faith in our political principles has never for 
a moment been shaken. but various reasons had combined 
to make any active interposition in party struggles irk- 
some & distasteful to me. I believe that had it not been 
for the hope that I might in some feeble degree contribute 
to your nomination my retirement from the political arena 
would have been permanent & complete. I should have 
confined myself to depositing an unmixed democratic vote 
at every important eiection. If Cass had been nominated 
he could have had my vote & pecuniary contribution, with 
little anxiety & still less hope for his success. as to 
Douglas, Houston, Lane or any man of that stamp, as | 
should have considered success with such men, as more 
disastrous to the permanent interests of the party than 
their defeat, I should not have voted at all. At one time, 
I could have cordially supported Marcy, as my second 
choice, but his weakness in yielding to the spurious & arti- 
ficial excitement gotten up in favor of Kossuth & inter- 
vention shook my faith entirely in his judgment but his 
poiitical integrity & the course of his friends at Baltimore, 
who by well timed interposition could have secured your 
nomination, has entirely changed my feelings towards him 
—A\s it is, 1 am as well satisfied with the choice of the 
convention as I could possibly be with any result short of 
your nomination & | shail heartily support Pierce & King’ 
without feeling any particular enthusiasm. I shall do 
everything in my power to aid in carrying the vote of 
Louisiana which I think we have more than equal chance 
of doing. With Filmore opposed to us, | should have 
hoped tor success, without counting on it very confidently. 

Mrs. Slidell has written you a note which I enclose. I 
trust that we shall meet at Saratoga or some where this 
summer. We leave here for New York by the river about 


94 JOHN SLIDELL 


3 to 4 July. our journey will probably not be longer than 
10 days. Pray let us hear from you care of Belmont, 
who, I believe, is almost as much annoyed at your defeat 
as any of us. 
Believe me ever faithfully & respy 
Your friend etc 
John Slidell. 

Honl. James Buchanan, 

Wheatland.*° 


The analytical and philosophical manner in 
which Buchanan viewed his own defeat found in- 
teresting expression in what amounted to a letter 
of condolence to Marcy, a fellow victim with 
himself. 


My dear Sir: 

I have received your favor of the 6th Instant. There 
is but one thing in which all my friends North, South, 
East and West agree in giving me the proceedings of the 
Convention; & that is that if your friends in the New 
York Delegation, or any respectable number of them had 
voted for me, I should have been nominated, or failing in 
this, you would have been the successful candidate. One 
or other of these results was completely within the power 
of our friends. I knew from the beginning that my 
friends, if they could not nominate me could control the 
nomination. You were my preference & this was known; 
but my friends, in the ardor of the contest, got their feel- 
ings so excited as to place you out of the question. Per- 
haps this is best for us both. I am entirely satisfied, with 
the nomination of Pierce & King, tho I greatly preferred 
you to the former. We are now both shelved, & it is my 
ardent desire that we should continue good friends as 
long as we both shall live.*? 


“° New Orleans, June 23, 1852. 


“Wm. L. Marcy Papers in the Library of Congress. James 
Buchanan to Wm. L. Marcy, June 10, 1852. 


PROGRESS 95 


Events were to demonstrate that the optimistic 
calculations thus temporarily set back were based 
on a sound analysis of political trends, and, with 
an energy no whit abated, Slidell laid his plans for 
the next convention. His correspondence for the 
next year or two reveals the same keen and in- 
cisive estimate of men and events, and, as the 
Cincinnati convention drew near, it becomes a 
definite source for the history of the times. 

The summer following his disappointment at 
Baltimore Slidell spent at Saratoga, carefully 
avoiding Newport with its temperance legislation 
because of his “horror of despotism in every 
shape” and of his reluctance, in spite of his belief 
that the law was a dead letter, to place himself 
“within the jurisdiction ofa state where so tyran- 
nical a system exists.”*? Contact with northern 
politics confirmed his impression that the Whig 
party was moribund. “It may be galvanised for 
the moment into a show of activity, but after a 
few short convulsive struggles it will be definitely 
numbered among the things that were.” But, with 
a blindness to the implications of his own proph- 
ecy rare in this astute observer, he declares that 
“Tt will of course be revived under some other 
organization & probably with a new name, when 
we shall I hope slough off some of our own rotten- 


“* Saratoga, July 28, 1852. 


96 JOHN SLIDELL 


ness to be absorbed by the force of natural affini- 
ties into the Seward and Hale faction.”** 

Victory at the polls was followed by the usual 
rush of applications for place under the incoming 
administration. One of these, of unquestionable 
interest to Slidell, was the candidacy of his niece’s 
husband, August Belmont, for a diplomatic post, 
preferably at Naples. Slidell did not act directly 
in this manner, but among several recommenda- 
tions addressed to Marcy, the incoming secretary 
of state, and written chiefly by friends of Belmont 
in New York, was one from Buchanan which un- 
doubtedly expressed the desire of his friend. “TI, 
also, feel much interest in the appointment of Bel- 
mont to Naples. If you desire to acquire Cuba in 
a peaceful manner, the President ought to select 
akle and accomplished ministers to Naples, Spain, 
England and France who would cordially work 
together & Belmont would contribute his full 
share of influence.’’** 

While Belmont was thus exerting every influ- 
ence for a position which he failed to secure,*® 
Democrats no less distinguished than General 
Cass were discussing Slidell also as strong timber 
for Pierce’s cabinet. Upon learning of this, Sli- 
dell expressed as much surprise as pleasure and 
attributed it to anxiety “to prevent the secession- 

“New York, September 15, 1852. 
“Wm. L. Marcy Papers. Library of Congress. Folio 29, James 


Buchanan to Wm. L. Marcy, Wheatland, March 8, 1853. 
“ Eventually, however, he was sent to Holland. 


PROGRESS 97 


ists with Soulé at their head from acquiring 
supremacy,” and to a conviction that Slidell was 
“the most available Union man in the States south 
of Virginia.’’*® 

If this cabinet appointment did awaken any 


hopes and subsequent disappointments, these were, / 


nothing to the surprise which Slidell felt at 
Pierce’s failure to offer the state department to 
Buchanan. While the cabinet decisions were 
pending Buchanan apparently suggested to Slidell 
the advisability of going to Washington. To this 
he demurred on the ground that a cabinet post, 
now very unlikely to be offered, would be unde- 
sirable if it meant close social and political rela- 
tions with such men as Hunter and Nicholson, 
who, it was understood, would be members and on 
whom Slidell placed a very low estimate. “If the 
rest of the cabinet be proportionately weak, I 
should have little hope of its duration or of its 
being long enabled to command majorities in Con- 
gress.” Under such circumstances, a foreign 
mission would be more desirable than a cabinet 
appointment. But, if men like Buchanan were 
being ignored in the framing of the new govern- 
ment, there was scant likelihood that those in con- 
trol of events would view Slidell’s pretensions 
with favor. On the whole, Slidell’s chief causes 
for satisfaction lay close at home, where his wing 


*“New York, September 27, 1852. 


98 JOHN SLIDELL 


‘of the Democracy was strongly in the ascendant 
over Soulé.””*? 

Discussion of cabinet possibilities continued 
until the results were finally known. But by Janu- 
ary 21, 1853, Slidell had pretty well made up his 
mind not to accept what would probably not be 
offered, on the basis that “If the Department of 
State is to be offered to & refused by men of Mr. 
Hunter’s calibre & questionable political ortho- 
doxy, I do not feel very ambitious for a post in 
the cabinet.’*® In February he professed the 
utmost chagrin that Buchanan should have ex- 
posed himself to discourtesy and rebuff on his 
behalf. “But I look upon this incident in a still 
more serious light. it is to my mind a very preg- 
nant indication that sudden & unexpected eleva- 
tion to so dizzy a height has had its usual bewild- 
erineremecta. 

Whether or not Slidell liked Pierce and political 
prospects under an administration which he al- 
ready viewed with gloomy forebodings, the ques- 
tion of patronage could not be ignored, and in a 
very frank letter to Marcy, the secretary of state, 
Slidell set forth the true inwardness of Louisiana 
politics and his own claim to recognition where the 
patronage was concerned. 

“New Orleans, December 31, 1852. 


““ New Orleans, January 21, 1853. 
“New Orleans, February 13, 1852. 


PROGRESS 99 


New Orleans, 10 March, 1853. 
My dear Sir, 


I feel a deep interest in the success of the application 
of my friend Penn, for the Collectorship of this place. I 
do not write to the President on the subject for two rea- 
sons, first that I have no cause to believe that my recom- 
mendation would have any weight with him, next that as 
I have not the advantage of his personal acquaintance, I 
could not with propriety allude to questions of local poli- 
tics, which enter largely into the consideration of an ap- 
pointment so important as that of Collector of New 
Orleans. I understand that his most formidable competi- 
tor is Doctor Mercier, a brother in law of Senator Soulé. 
Mr. Lasen is in Washington, you know him well and I 
believe have confidence in him. He will explain to you 
what is the relative strength of parties here (I speak now 
of divisions in our own ranks) & where the sound and 
reliable influence with the democracy is to be found. This, 
as he will tell you, is not a matter of surmise or con- 
jecture. We have recently had a trial of strength in our 
primary and regular elections & the nullity, (I am not 
using an exaggerated expression) of the Soulé party has 
been demonstrated beyond the possibility of a doubt. Mr. 
Soulés friends were no where in our nominating conven- 
tion & after the nominations, they, headed by Doctor 
Mercier, strenuously exerted themselves to defeat two of 
our Senatorial ticket, Messrs Lewis & King, but both 
those gentlemen were elected by 1200 majority, Lewis be- 
ing second & King third on the ticket. All the Senators 
were my personal & political friends, but these two gentle- 
men were especially the objects of the impotent malice of 
the Soulé faction [were the] senatorial election to come off 
tomorrow, I should in a democratic legislative caucus re- 
ceive at least five votes to one against Soulé. I do not 
enter into further details, but refer you to Lasen who 
can place you in possession of all the particulars of our 
local divisions. He will satisfy you that Doctor Mercier’s 
appointment will insure the defeat of our party at the 


100 JOHN SLIDELL 


next election. As to Mr. Penns qualifications, I can only 
say that he is a man of sound judgment, admirab'e busi- 
ness habits, & incorrupt’ble integrity. A decided but 
calm & discreet man in politics his official patronage will 
be builded in the manner best calculated to promote the 
permanent interests of the party & to secure the con- 
tinuance of our present ascendancy in the legislature. 
I am little in the habit of speaking of my own party serv- 
ices, you may hear of them from others, but I may at 
least venture to say that they entitle me to be heard in a 
qvestion of this nature. 
If you can aid Mr. Penn, you will confer a signal 
favor on, 
My dear Sir, 
Your friend & servant 
John Slidell. © 
Honl. W. L. Marcy 
Ftc. Ete: 
Washington.®° 


It was in truth no more than natural that Pierce 
should hold at arm’s length his most formidable 
rival and that rival’s lieutenant, but to ignore them 
entirely was not feasible. Buchanan was eventu- 
ally offered the mission to the Court of St. James, 
an appointment upon which he made a suggestive 
memorandum to the effect that an interview with 
Jefferson Davis, ‘“‘sought for the purpose of bene- 
fiting my friend, John Slidell, who was then a 
candidate for the Senate, has doubtless been the 
cause why I was nominated and confirmed as 
minister to England on the next day.’’’* Slidell, 
for his part, was nominated for the mission to 


® William L. Marcy Papers. Library of Congress. Slidell to 
Marcy. New Orleans, March 10, 1853. 

3 Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, IX. 15. July 12, 
1853. 


PROGRESS 101 


Central America, a compliment which he professed 
to appreciate,”* but which he did not accept, pre-_ 
ferring a mission to London for the sale of rail- 
road bonds to a diplomatic mission in Central 
America. 

On the eve of sailing, Slidell drafted a short let- 
ter to Buchanan which reveals a rather curious 
insensibility to the proper relations between pub- 
lic and private business. Buchanan could not be 
in London at the same time with Slidell, who 
laments: “I had anticipated great satisfaction 
from meeting you in London not altogether un- 
mixed with a selfish feeling that your presence 
might aid Mr. Robb and me in conducting our 
negotiation for the sale of Rail Road bonds.’ 
It should be said to the credit of Slidell, however, 
that the difficulties in his path were such as to de- 
mand every assistance available, for the company 
which he represented, the New Orleans and Nash- 
ville railroad company, traversed the state of 
Mississippi and so required a Mississippi charter, 
which, in view of their former dealings with Miss- 
issippi industries and governments, was in itself 
a warning to capitalists to shun the investment. 
It was, in fact, one of Slidell’s major tasks to 
demonstrate that he represented primarily a 
Louisiana and not a Mississippi corporation.** 


" New Orleans, March 30, and May 27, 1853. 
New York, June 28, 1853. 


* The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, August 5, 1853. Quoting 
extract from New York, July 18, 1853. 


102 JOHN SLIDELL 


The death of Senator Barrow and the transfer 
of Soulé to the Spanish mission at last cleared the 
‘way for the realization of Slidell’s great ambition, 
long ago confided to Buchanan. Upon his return 
from Europe he promptly entered upon his cov- 
eted position in the United States senate. He 
was regarded as an accession to the moderates, 
and the comment made by George W. Jones of 
Tennessee in a letter to Howell Cobb of Georgia 
respecting the new senator from Louisiana fairly 
well states the case. “Slidell for Soulé in the 
Senate is certainly not a bad change. . . . Lam 
not certain but that it is better to have these ultra 
men North and South in under executive appoint- 
ments than in legislative positions—particularly if 
the President be right.”°° 

Slidell and Buchanan were moving rapidly to- 
wards the goal which they had set. Buchanan, 
though at a distance, was safe in the guardian- 
ship of Slidell, and the new-fledged senator had 
himself a spacious stage for action. 

* Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, The Correspondence of Robert 


Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 327. Jones 
to Cobb, May 19, 1853. 


CLAP TER: Vi 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 


S a senator Slidell found himself plunged 
into the midst of great affairs. During the 
early months of 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill} 
held the focus of attention, only to yield to the 
Cuban agitation and the Ostend Manifesto. In | 
the latter of these Slidell was vitally concerned, 
while even in the former he seems to have exerted 
some influence, especially in connection with the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Galusha A.| 
Grow, a participant in the discussion, is authority 
for the statement that, “In the interval between 
the reporting of the original bill and the substi- 
tute, Senator Douglas, Senator Slidell, and myself 
dined at the home of James Campbell, of Pennsyl- 
vania, who was Pierce’s Postmaster-General. 
After dinner Douglas and Slidell entered into a 
lively conversation during which the latter in a 
very earnest manner said, ‘Douglas, you ought to 
make one Territory and repeal the Missouri 
Compromise’.””* 
It is anecdotes like this of Grow’s which, though 
all too few have survived, indicate the real influ- 


*James T. Dubois and Gertrude S. Mathews, Galusha A. Grow. 
(Boston, 1917), p. 138. 


104 JOHN SLIDELL 


ence of Slidell as a legislator. In this respect his 
senatorial career duplicated his experience in the 
lower house. The official record is largely formal. 
Slidell is revealed as attentive to detail though in- 
different to the laurels of the forum. But the 
detail work has a significance of its own. Solici- 
tude over the confirmation of land titles’ and over 
land grants for railroad construction,*® advocacy 
of a naval station near New Orleans,’ the pushing 
of claims of individual constituents’ were only in 
part routine. Slidell took a lively personal interest 
in the developing railway system of the country. 
Doubtless, also, his own interest was enlisted in 
the case of the petition which he presented of 
United States naval and marine officers stationed 
in the Gulf during the Mexican War, and more 
recently transferred to Japanese waters, “to be 
placed upon the same footing as those who served 
on the coast of California and Mexico during the 
war.”® Nor is it necessary to ascribe this to 
nepotism and a brotherly devotion to his sister’s 
husband, the commander of the squadron. The 


navy and its welfare were an abiding interest with 
Slidell. 


* Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII. Pt. 
1, p. 66, December 20, 1853; also p. 186, January 17, 1854. 


* lbid., p. 73, December 21, 1853, and p. 14, January 7, 1854. 

‘/bid., p. 81, December 22. 

* Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII. Pt. 
1, p. 200. January 18, 1854, and /bid., p. 205, January 19, 1854. 

® Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII. 
Pt. 1, p. 239. January 24, 1854. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 105 


It will be remembered that, as a member of the 
lower house, Slidell submitted a resolution for in-! 
creasing state control over the judiciary, also aj 
constitutional amendment concerning the election 
of presidents. He carried the same legalistic en- 
terprise into the senate, and, in a resolution to 
amend its rules so as to remove the injunction of/ 
secrecy covering senate action on nominations sub- 
mitted for confirmation, he placed himself in 
harmony with a more recent enthusiasm for “‘open 
covenants openly arrived at.”* With Slidell it 
was less a question of theory than of practice. 
Secrecy was constantly betrayed. Better, then, 
abandon the farce. 

That Slidell, even on an issue of local improve- 
ments, was capable of taking a national view- 
point, appeared in the handling of a bill for remov- 
ing obstructions to the Mississippi at Southwest 
Pass and Pass a l’Outré. The bill was in charge 
of Judah P. Benjamin with Slidell in support. 
It was opposed by Stewart of Michigan and Bell 
of Tennessee, who favored a general rivers and 
harbors policy rather than a host of individual 
bills. Benjamin and Slidell concurred in the 
desirability of withdrawing their bill.® 

The happiness which Slidell derived from his 
life in the senate is apparent in the tone of his 


*Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, lst Session. XXVIII. 
Pt. 1, p. 303. February 1, 1854. 


* Ibid., p. 448. February 20, 1854. 


106 JOHN SLIDELL 


correspondence with Buchanan. He even in- 
dulged in a number of witticisms, rare for him, at 
Buchanan’s adventure in going to Buckingham 
Palace in the costume of a plain American citizen. 
Secretary Marcy’s attempt to advertise American 
simplicity complicated the situation of American 
diplomatic agents. Slidell congratulated Buch- 
anan on his single blessedness. “To what unheard 
of contumelies|& injuries might you not have been 
exposed had the additional responsibility of Mrs. 
B ’*s costume been thrown upon you, and then 
although we Louisianians may fight strangers 
with impunity what would have become of you 
from the Quaker State if you had attempted to 
avenge in the blood of the critic any commentary 
upon the taste of your better half.” 

Turning, in the same letter, to more serious 
aspects of the political scene, Slidell finds much 
dissatisfaction at the course pursued by the ad- 
ministration toward the rival factions, Hunkers 
and Barnburners, in New York. An interven- 
tion, regrettable under any circumstances, was 
particularly inept when directed in behalf of the 
wrong side and betrayed a gross ignorance of the 
state of public opinion. More serious even than 
this was Pierce’s failure to win dignity and 
strength for his administration through the selec- 
tion of a strong cabinet. “This is a much more 
important element of success than is generally 





° Washington, January 14, 1854. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 107 


supposed & Pierce will yet in all probability feel 
the want of it.” In fact, lacking the personal 
support of the leaders of his party, Pierce could 
count upon merely a formal allegiance to a titular 
head, for ‘“‘there is probably not a member of the 
Senate, who does not consider his own individual 
Opinion in every other respect entitled to quite as 
much consideration as that of the President. in 
other words he is the de jure not the de facto head 
of the party.” On top of it all, Pierce is a weak 
man ruled by two members of his cabinet, or 
rather one now, for Slidell thinks that Jefferson 
Davis has fallen into some disfavor because of 
his announced desire to abandon the President 
and return to the senate. With such a heavy 
budget on his part, Slidell begs in return that 
Buchanan will inform him how the diplomatic 
corps at London regards Soulé and his duels. 
In view of the political intimacy which this 
correspondence reveals, it would be surprising if 
Slidell had taken no part in the movement leading 
to the Ostend Manifesto. His interest in Cuba 
has already been noted, and, soon after Buchanan 
entered upon his duties in London, the Cuban situ- 
ation underwent a phase peculiarly alarming to 
southerners and annexationists. Slidell, with 
many others, was convinced that Great Britain 
and France were in a plot to “Africanize’”’ Cuba, 
even converting it into a Black Republic rather 


* Washington, January 14, 1854, 


108 JOHN SLIDELL 


than see it fall into American hands; this, of 
course, presupposing Spain’s own inability to re- 
tain possession. He suggested that Belmont, then 
minister at the Hague, through his powerful con- 
nections at Madrid, might be in position to secure 
for Buchanan authentic information as to the 
existence and nature of these engagements. And, 
when he hinted that the $15,000,000 designed for 
Santa Anna in Mexico might be required ‘“‘in ex- 
penditures of more urgent necessity,” he had in 
mind possible contingencies in Cuba." 

Not long after writing this letter to Buchanan, 
Slidell’s intense interest in the subject there 
touched upon caused him to deliver one of his few 
formal addresses in the senate. His text was the 
necessity for action. In the curt condensation of 
the congressional reporter its essence follows: 

Some months since, Mr. President, I was as skeptical 
as any one on this floor could be about the existence of 
any concerted plan to Africanize Cuba. I use the word, 
not for the reason that it has become fashionable, but 
because it plainly conveys, to my mind at least, without 
periphrasis, the complex ideas of emancipation, confisca- 
tion, pillage, murder, devastation and barbarism. Past 
experience has led me to be surprised at nothing that Eng- 
land might attempt to prevent the possession of this mag- 
nificent island by her great commercial rival, a rival 
destined to be, in a very few years, if, in fact, she be not 
already, in that respect, her recognized superior. Still, I 
could not bring myself to believe that Spain, with all her 


pride and obstinacy, would prefer the destruction of a 
flourishing colony, peopled by her own sons, to the pros- 


4 Washington, March 25, 1854. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 109 


pect of its transfer, at some future, perhaps distant day, 
by honorable and peaceful negotiation, to a friendly 
nation, for a price that would extricate her finances from 
that gulf of seemingly hopeless bankruptcy in which they 
have been so long plunged. 


Asking the further indulgence of the senate, 
Slidell undertook to trace the growth of a tri- 
partite agreement of Spain, England, and France 
“to renounce, both now and hereafter, all inten- 
tion to obtain possession of the Island of Cuba, 
and to discountenance all attempts to that effect 
on the part of others,” as announced by the British 
secretary of state for foreign affairs on April 
8, 1852. No reply to this having been made by 
Mr. Webster, it devolved upon his successor, Mr. 
Everett, who satisfied even so sensitive a critic as 
Slidell by ‘‘a paper which will be forever remarka- 
ble in our diplomatic history, for its high-toned 
nationality, and a vigor of style corresponding 
with the importance of the question.” The speech 
closed with an elaborate explanation of British 
plans to encourage abolition, or a slave uprising 
against the Cuban creoles, an indictment of the 
“apprentice” system, and a conclusion that Great 
Britain and France are united, so far as this 
hemisphere is concerned, for nothing more defi- 
nitely than to cut America from Cuban aspirations, 
even at the cost of another Black Republic like 
Haiti.” Such being the case, any auditor might 


* Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII. Pt. 
2, p. 1021. May 1, 1854. 


110 JOHN SLIDELL 


at once perceive America’s duty to be as plain as 
Delenda est Carthago. 

In transmitting to Buchanan a corrected copy 
of this speech, Slidell asks, subject to “all proper 
reservations,” for additional information on the 
subject, as well as for a more precise statement of 
what Buchanan meant in his Elgin dinner speech 
by saying that “if we were engaged in war we 
should abstain from commissioning private armed 
vessels unless national vessels of the enemy were 
inhibited from capturing our merchant vessels.”’" 

y So long as Cuba remained the focus of diplo- 
| matic interest Slidell kept in close touch with the 
state department, urging upon Marcy the need 
of frequent reports from and to the ministers at 
London and Paris. When Marcy admitted the 
wisdom of such a course, Slidell remarked that 
this change of policy might be due to the secre- 
tary’s own reflections, or again that it might have 
been suggested by the President, “on whom I have 
more than once urged the absolute necessity of 
bringing your | Buchanan’s| influence & that of 
Mason & Belmont to bear upon our negotiations 
at Madrid—Things may yet take such a turn as 
to render the Russian legation at Madrid a very 
useful auxiliary.” 

Eager as Slidell was to advance the cause, he 
felt no inclination to be a catspaw for the Pierce 


* Washington, May 4, 1854. 
“ Washington, June 17, 1854. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 111 


administration. He participated with Mason, 
Douglas, Davis, and two others in a White House 
conference held early in June at which he urged 
upon Pierce a message to Congress so worded “as 
to satisfy our people in New Orleans that he was 
prepared to pursue an energetic policy & thus 
induce them to abstain from any hostile expedi- 
tion.” When Pierce attempted to evade personal 
responsibility for such a course by suggesting that 
Slidell himself telegraph the district attorney at 
New Orleans that “immediate & decisive measures 
would be taken in relation to Cuba,” he peremp- 
torily refused, on the very proper ground that such 
a notice must be on all accounts an official act of 
the state department. Marcy was instructed ac- 
cordingly. Buta recess afforded excuse for delay, 
and Slidell was increasingly convinced that the 
President would never take the promised action, 
the more so as his general vacillation was a subject 
of general comment in both houses of Congress.” 

However shifting or shifty the administration, 
Slidell was not the man to cease pressing a point 
so near to his heart. A passage in his next letter 
to Buchanan strongly suggests that he was a mov- 
ing force behind the Manifesto. ‘The idea now 
is to have you, Soulé & Mason to meet for the 
purpose of consultation. I have suggested that 
on account of the Rothschild influence, at Madrid 
& Paris, it would be well that Belmont be brought 


* Washington, June 17, 1854. 


112 JOHN SLIDELL 


either personally or by correspondence into your 
counsels.” Such activity on the part of a senator 
who was scarcely of the President’s immediate 
household of faith may well have seemed officious. 
And relations between Slidell and Marcy became 
somewhat tense.’® 

While Cuba was at this period the dominant 
interest of Slidell, a nice problem in the responsi- 
bilities of a senator toward his state also claimed 
consideration. The legislature of Louisiana speci- 
fically instructed the senators and requested the 
representatives of the state in Congress to work 
for “a bill granting to the State of Louisiana four 
townships of land for the education of the deaf 
and dumb, and three townships for the education 
of the blind.” A mandate of this sort in no way 
conflicted with Slidell’s views on constitutional 
theory. As he expressed it, “I should, with the 
opinions I entertain of the right of the Legislature 
to instruct, and of the correlative duty of Senators 
to obey, have felt myself bound to sustain it by my 
vote, if it simply provided for grants of lands to 
the States for the benevolent purposes which it 
specifies.” Unfortunately, however, the bill as 
drafted provided for minute supervision by the 
United States government of the state institu- 


* August 6, 1854. Correspondence in the Marcy Papers, Library 
of Congress, of May and June, 1855, indicates that Marcy, for his 
part, deeply regretted and at the same time resented, the alienation 
of Slidell. Marcy to R. Withers, May 27, 1855, and Withers to 
Marcy, June 7, 1855. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 113 


tions to be benefited, especially in the matter of 
rendering account of sales and scrip. ‘This obli- 
gation of periodical accountability is at war with 
all the views I entertain of the proper relations 
that should exist between sovereign states and the 
Federal Government; and I cannot vote for any 
bill in which provisions so derogatory to the dig- 
nity of the States shall be retained. I feel confi- 
dent that the Legislature of Louisiana would 
repudiate any grant that sought to impose such 
an accountability.”** A suggestive instance, this, 
of the sincerity of Slidell’s states-rights convic- 
tions, divorced of all connection with slavery. 

During the summer of 1854 Slidell found him- 
self in friendly opposition with Stuart of Michi- 
gan, in hostile with Jones of Tennessee. Stuart 
was sponsor for a bill making it easier for aliens 
to acquire government land. Slidell opposed it on 
the ground that citizens, not aliens, had a prior 
lien on government munificence, and aliens would 
do well to announce their intention to become citi- 
zens.* With Jones, feeling was less friendly. In 
a passage between the two men the repartee was 
sharp. The dispute concerned contracts for mail 
delivery. Jones desired better and more expensive 
service. 


™ Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, lst Session, XXVIII. 
Pt. 3, pp. 1620, 1621. July 6, 1854. 

*® Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII. 
Pt. 3, p. 1749. July 14, 1854. 


114 JOHN SLIDELL 


Mr. Jones, of Tennessee: I should like to ask the Sen- 
ator from Louisiana, who undertakes to state what facili- 
ties we have, to tell me how often we get mails at Mem- 
phis from St. Louis and Nashville. 

Mr. Slidell: I really cannot answer that question. 

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee: That is just as I supposed ; 
the Senator does not know anything about it. 

Mr. Slidell: I do not think my admission went so far. 
I may, perhaps, not have that very accurate information 
which the Senator possesses on this and all other subjects ; 
but I think I do know something about it. I hope he will 
correct the remark he has just made. I am not in the habit 
of stating anything of which I know nothing. 

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee: I am willing to concede to 
the Senator from Louisiana superior intelligence on every 
subject except this; but I understood him to say that the 
Postmaster General, for an expenditure of $80,000 or 
$90,000 a year, has as good mail service as he could have 
obtained at $290,000 under the law.19 


With that the issue lapsed into the commonplace. 
Familiarity with the Pierce administration 
bred no respect in the mind of Slidell. He un- 
burdened himself to Buchanan in numerous com- 
plaints at the government’s failure to command 
\ the respect of its own partisans. For the failure 
of negotiations for Cuba and the futility of the 
Ostend Manifesto he blamed neither Spain nor 
i Buchanan but Pierce. He asked for “such details 
about your conference with Mason & Soulé as you 
may choose to communicate confidentially, al- 
though I have not now the least hope of acquiring 


*® Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, XXVIII, Pt. 
3, p. 2091. August 2, 1854, 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 115 


Cuba under this administration.”*° This being 
the case, all that remained was to plan so carefully 
for the next administration that the Baltimore 
disappointment should not be repeated. He 
warned Buchanan, who had grown weary of his 
mission, not to resign prematurely and by a return 
to America to surrender the advantage of silence 
on critical issues. ‘“The political atmosphere is 
malarious (if there be no such word there should 
be) & those who are not compelled to inhale it had 
better keep away.”** Credit is due the sagacity 
which could thus condense all the essentials for 
success. 

Meanwhile, Slidell looked to his own fences, re- 
turning to the senate with little difficulty,” where 
he remained loyal to Buchanan. A letter of April 
3, 1855, attests that he placed upon Buchanan 
no responsibility whatever for the fiasco at 
Ostend. 

New Orleans, 3 April, 1855. 
My dear Mr. Buchanan: 


I wrote you a few hurried lines shortly after the ad- 
journment of Congress. Since then I have read with 
great pleasure your Ostend manifesto. I say yours, for 
I think it carries with it internal evidence of its being the 
product of your sound judgment & practised pen. It has 
my unqualified approbation both as to form & substance. 
The only fault that can justly be found with the proceed- 
ings is one for which you are not responsible, the unnec- 


New York, October 18, 1854. 
% Ibid. 
* Washington, March 3, 1855, 


116 JOHN SLIDELL 


essary formality of your meeting and the publicity given 
to its objects. You were right in your objections to the 
mode and place of meeting, & I deeply regret that you 
did not insist upon them. You might have met at Paris 
or London without any suspicion of your object, or what 
would have been still better, might have fully interchanged 
views by correspondence. One thing has struck me as 
perhaps giving a certain vantage ground to Marcy. It is 
this—that he seems, so far as I can judge from the pub- 
lished documents, only to invite you to confer about the 
best means of promoting the acquisition of Cuba by pur- 
chase, while you have reviewed the whole question of 
policy & suggested the possibility of recourse being had to 
measures of coercion. But as Marcy has not availed him- 
self of this objection, it is probable that good reasons exist 
for his abstinence, in the papers that have not yet been 
given to the public. As to Marcy’s course I think that I 
can very readily account for it. His every thought is 
directed toward the Presidency, & he fancies that he sees 
in you the only obstacle to the realisation of his dreams. 
On this subject he is morbidly susceptible, & is constantly 
suspecting some deep laid scheme to supplant him. Poor 
man! if every one whose name has ever been mentioned 
in connection with the Presidency were translated to an- 
other world, I do not believe that he could obtain the vote 
of a solitary State for his nomination. Rumor is rife, 
probably without any foundation, that he will leave the 
Cabinet. On this score, I am entirely indifferent, for I 
have no hope that any change can restore to the President 
the lost confidence of the party. Say what they will of 
Nebraska and Know-Nothingism, the personal unpopu- 
larity or rather the total want of consideration and influ- 
ence of the administration has been the chief cause of our 
reverses. The mass of the party is as sound as ever, but 
no confidence is reposed in its nominal chief, & a party 
without a head is doomed to as certain destruction, as an 
army without a general. I have written you a very gloomy 
letter. Perhaps a shocking cold under which I have been 
laboring since the adjournment of Congress may have its 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 117 


influence on the view I take of our political future, but I 
confess that I cannot see anything encouraging in the per- 
spective. My family are all well. the climate of Louisiana 
seems to agree with them much better than that of Wash- 
ington, but as I cannot make up mind to be separated from 
them for many months at a time, we must run the risk of 
northern winters. Mrs. S. feels very sensibly the sacri- 
fice of our comfortable home, which we cannot replace at 
Washington, but as a good wife submits with the best 
grace she can to what is unavoidable. She begs to be 
remembered to you. We will leave here in June, pass a 
few weeks in Washington, & then go to Newport. When 
do you intend returning home?’ Believe me ever faithfully 
Your friend 
John Slidell. 

Hon. James Buchanan, 

London.?8 


This consolation as to the Manifesto was fol- 
lowed in June by a letter of gossip, very entertain- 
ing in its survey of events. To begin with, Slidell 
was “for the present at least & possibly forever” 
at outs with Pierce and Marcy. Pierce would 
probably be quite willing to accept Buchanan’s 
resignation; Marcy might like the post; but to 
take it would seem like a retiring under fire. 
Soulé, back from a ridiculous failure in Spain, 
was out for Marcy’s scalp, and the secretary must 
stand his ground. Rumor had it that Soulé meant 
to challenge Marcy. “Will this not be a capital 
farce. I look forward to the denouement as a 
rich treat.” Marcy was probably leading him on 
and at the proper moment would pounce on him “a 

* Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, IX. 332. April 3, 


55. 


118 JOHN SLIDELL 


la Scott.” for, given time and preparation, Marcy 
with pen in hand was a dangerous customer. 
Slidell has not time to explain in detail his own 
break with Pierce, but in substance it was due to 
“repeated violations of his word which can only 
be explained by the most reckless indifference to 
truth or deliberate treachery.’’* 

In the more general field of politics, Slidell 
thought it surprising that the people at Newport, 
where he was sojourning, felt far more interest in 
Sebastopol and the Crimea than in Kansas and 
Know-Nothingism. But, in so far as the parties 
were lining up for the contest, the Democracy 
could count on the more intelligent and wealthy 
Whigs, whom disgust at “the results of their 
truckling to negrophilism & the other cants of the 
day” was driving into “the true conservative 
party of the country.” Even so, it might be too 
late to remedy the situation, and Slidell, intent 
upon nominating his friend to the presidency of 
a united country, already sounds the note of dis- 
solution. Almost the key-note of Buchanan’s term 
of office is Slidell’s prophetic declaration that 
“trustful as I have hitherto been of the perpetuity 
of the Union I begin to look forward to a dissolu- 
tion as a not very remote possibility. The ques- 
tion will be solved one way or the other during 
the next Presidential term. how different would 


* Washington, June 17, 1855. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 119 


have been our position had you received the 
nomination at Baltimore.””° 

A Democratic triumph in Pennsylvania with 
“every issue fairly met & the glove thrown down 
to all the isms combined” served notice that vic- 
tory would be certain in 1856.7 And Buchanan 
might rest assured that absence was not injuring 
his cause. “The old adage that ‘les absents ont 
toujours tort’ will not be verified in your case. 
the people are taking care of you and the almost 
universal admission by politicians here from every 
part of the country that you are the only man for 
the crisis, is an unmistakable indication of the 
force & depth of the popular current.” The time 
had come, however, when Buchanan must express 
his obedience to the will of the sovereign people. 
Too rigid insistence that he was not a candidate 
would work to his detriment. He had better con- 
vey his willingness to accept by a letter “‘to some 
discreet friend or friends.” As for Slidell him- 
self, nothing was to be gained by a reconciliation 
with Pierce. He was in good company, as it was, 
“ion tie) feeling of contempt for /Ederce’ in) the 
Senate is general. indeed, with the exception per- 
haps of General Dodge, not a man there is in 
favor of his renomination.” Pierce’s own expec- 
tation of a second term was, therefore, utterly 
absurd. “But I am writing treason & my letter is 


** Newport, Rhode Island, September 2, 1855. 
7° Washington, October 11, 1855. 


120 JOHN SLIDELL 


to go through the State Department. I must not 
further expose my head.”’*? 

Buchanan wrote the desired letter, taking the 
occasion of a political declaration of faith to offer 
to Slidell the tribute of a personal friendship. 
Thus, almost in commencing, he writes: “I have 
no reserve to yourself either on the subject of 
the Presidency or any other subject, and yet I 
cannot make up my mind to write, even to you, 
‘acknowledging the obligation under which every 
man should be of obedience to the popular will’.” 
In closing, he testifies that “I have written to 
you more freely than to any other friend the real 
sentiments of my heart.’’** Nor is there any rea- 
son to doubt the sincerity of these protestations. 
At all events, the letter confirmed the faith of its 
recipient in the political orthodoxy of Buchanan.*® 

By 1856 the preconvention campaign was under 
way, all possible scruples of the candidate having 
been overcome.*® ‘The support of General Cass, 
announced in February, was particularly welcome. 
Slidell attributed it in part to the antipathy of 
Cass toward Douglas, who was believed to be 
an intending candidate and whose competition 
would be more formidable than that of Pierce.** 

"Washington, December 9, 1855. 

7 Moore, /he Works of James Buchanan, 1X. 485-487. Buch- 
anan to Slidell, London, December 28, 1855. 

” Washington, January 17, 1856. 

*° Moore, The Works of James Buchanan, X. 23. January 30, 


1856. 
“ Washington, February 7, 1856, 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 121 


Douglas, however, might himself come into the 
Buchanan camp. Even without Douglas, the 
Northwest, save Illinois, was safe. And on 
closer examination, Douglas himself was seen to 
possess some virtues. “I thought at first,’ wrote 
Slidell, “that he would give us a great deal of 
trouble. but his tone is now entirely changed & 
with his present feeling I would prefer that he 
should not formally retire.” The real enemy was 
Pierce. “Slidell would watch his every move. But 
Buchanan need not fear. His ground was im- 
pregnable. It might be debatable at this time 
whether Buchanan should return. Firm friends 
held different views regarding this. But Slidell 
would still counsel absence.*” 

In May, Slidell thought it advisable that Buch- 
anan, who had meanwhile returned to America 
and was at his estate of Wheatland, should take 
a positive stand on the Kansas-Nebraska question. 
“This you can do in perfect harmony with your 
whole record—I believe that it will reconcile 
Douglas & if it do not it will at least spike his 
guns.” It would be opportune, also, if Buchanan 
should seize upon the forthcoming visit of the 
Pennsylvania state delegation announcing his 
nomination at Harrisburg to deny categorically 
the possibility of his ever accepting a second term 
in the presidency. ‘‘It will appear much better in 
that form than by letter to individuals.’** Both 


* Washington, March 11, 1856. 
* Washington, May, 1856. 


122 JOHN SLIDELL 


of these points Slidell deemed sufficiently impor- 
tant to stress soon afterward in a second letter to 
the rather slow moving Buchanan. Particularly 
must he indicate the vote he would have cast on 
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill had he been in Congress 
atthe time,."* 

A rumor that Douglas and Hunter were com- 
bining to support Pierce determined Slidell to go 
at once to Cincinnati to marshal his forces in 
person.*® His activities upon arrival are described 
with appreciation by S. M. Barlow of New York, 
a co-worker in the cause, who recognised in Slidell 
the master spirit®® in the Buchanan campaign, 
achieving what Barlow had previously deemed 
the impossible. On the very eve of the conven- 
tion, and, as Barlow asserts, almost utterly with- 
out previous organization, Slidell and Benjamin, 
Bayard and Bright, all of them United States 
senators, foregathered in Barlow’s temporary 
home at Cincinnati to plan the discomfiture of 
Douglas and the elevation of Buchanan. Success 
was promptly seen to depend upon the character 
of the delegation from New York. Two factions, 
the ‘‘Softs,’ who were friendly to Douglas, and 
the ‘““Hards,”’ who obeyed the leadership of Mr. 
Schell, a friend of Buchanan, each claimed to be 

* Washington, May 24, 1856. 

* Washington, May 26, 1856. 

* Edward Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections (4th 
Ed.), p. 198, says of 1856 that “The preliminary intriguing has 


probably never been greater in any national nominating convention 
than it was at that time.” 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 123 


the legitimate spokesmen for New York. In the 
organization of the convention, however, Senator 
Bayard, who received the chairmanship of the 
committee on credentials, undertook to overcome 
the preference of a majority of his associates for 
the “Softs” to the extent of a compromise, which 
split the New York delegation equally between 
Douglas and Buchanan. The committee itself 
presented two reports, that of the majority, still 
loyal to Douglas, that of the minority as indicated 
above. Decision rested with the main body of 
delegates, who, by a narrow margin, adopted the 
minority report, a result due almost wholly to 
the maneuvering of that little group of master 
politicians gathered under Barlow’s roof, most in- 
fluential among whom was Slidell. As Barlow 
himself admitted, “Mr. Slidell was naturally the 
leader of the friends of Mr. Buchanan. His 
calmness, shrewdness and earnest friendship for 
Mr. Buchanan were recognized by all, and what- 
ever he advised was promptly assented to.” Bar- 
low goes on to praise the honesty with which 
Slidell refused to purchase support by means of 
pledges which might later embarrass the adminis- 
tration, and declares that he was present some- 
what later in Washington at an interview in 
which Slidell impressed strongly upon Buchanan 
the latter’s entire freedom from commitment. In 
the opinion of Barlow, the whole achievement was 
the more remarkable in view of the fact that, save 


-—— 


124 JOHN SLIDELL 


for Louisiana and Virginia, almost no part of the 
South was favorable to Buchanan, while in the 
North, the source of his actual strength, his forces 
were unorganized. Only at the last moment “Mr. 
Slidell undertook this task, and before the meeting 
of the convention Mr. Buchanan’s success was as- 
sured." Having won his major point, Slidell 
aimed at conciliation. Douglas was somewhat 
propitiated by permission to name John C, 
Breckinridge of Kentucky as the vice-presidential 
candidate, to whom Slidell himself wrote that “T 
was induced to urge your nomination on the 
Louisiana delegation by the earnest appeal of 
Richardson of Illinois [a Douglas leader] whose 
bearing & conduct during the convention had been 
most manly & straightforward. I considered your 
selection for the Vice Presidency as a graceful & 
merited compliment to the friends of Douglas.’’%* 

Success had finally crowned the efforts of Sli- 
dell, marking indeed the apex of his career. Too 
often, as in Mexico and France, his great abilities 
were pitted against hopeless odds. Here, in a fair 
field, they attained a most difficult objective, pur- 
sued for the past eight years with intelligence 
and faith. 

While Slidell was thus promoting the success 
of his friend and winning for himself something 
of the position of a king-maker, his own career 


*G. T. Curtis, Buchanan, II. 170-173. 
*From a letter kindly called to my attention by Dr. Roy F. 
Nichols of the University of Pennsylvania. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 125 


in the senate underwent more than one interest- 
ing development. It fell to his lot as chairman of 
the committee on naval affairs to defend the de- 
cisions of his brother-in-law, Commodore Matthew 
C. Perry, as a member of the Naval Retiring 
Board,*® the function of which was to weed 
incompetents from the service, a thankless task 
rewarded by nothing more certain than the enmity 
of the same incompetents and their friends. Ona 
bill to extend patents and other advantages to the 
McCormicks, it is interesting to find Slidell in the 
Opposition, once more under direction from Baton 
Rouge, for “The Legislature of Louisiana has 
instructed me to vote against the extension of any 
and every patent in every possible shape.’*° One 
finds him also waging war against claims for 
damages imputed to the War of 1812 presented by 
Hamlin of Maine on behalf of his constituents.*? 
In a minor way, perhaps, these votes and points 
of view reflected credit upon Slidell’s sincerity and 
his watchfulness over the public interest. 

It would be pleasant if one could dwell on these 
alone and omit an incident which brings discredit 
upon all concerned, upon Slidell by no means least. 
The part played by Slidell in the assault upon 
Sumner, though negative, is not creditable. So 
strong were Slidell’s original prejudices against 


* Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, lst Session, Appendix, 
pp. 311, 314, 315, 324, 325. March 31, 1856. 


““ [bid., 1st and 2nd Sessions, p. 1288. May 23, 1856. 
“ Tbid., p. 965. April 18, 1856. 


126 JOHN SLIDELL 


Sumner that only a few weeks after the Mac- 
kenzie trial, in which Sumner had wielded so 
useful and friendly a pen, Slidell, though sojourn- 
ing at the same hotel in Saratoga with Sumner, 
declined opportunities to meet him, on the plea that 
although he could not be other than grateful for 
Sumner’s “chivalrous and zealous advocacy” of 
his brother, social relations could never be candid 
with one whose avowed purpose it was “‘to exclude 
in his region the class to which he [Slidell] be- 
longed from the courtesies of social life and the 
common rites of humanity.” Nevertheless, when 
both were in the senate, it seems that for a time 
Slidell and Sumner were on friendly terms.** 
That such an awkward friendship could sur- 
vive the tests of American public life in the fifties 
was hardly to be expected. And, when Sumner 
was struck down within hearing of Slidell and 
almost in the presence of himself and Douglas, 
neither made a move to interfere or to condole. 
Such cold blooded indifference created a scandal 
which Slidell could not ignore. His defence, 
which does him little credit, is a matter of record. 
The Senate will recollect that we adjourned at an early 
hour on that day. I went into the ante-room, where I 
found my friend from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], Governor 
Fitzpatrick of Alabama, and Mr. J. Glancy Jones, of 
Pennsylvania, in conversation. They were seated. I ap- 


proached them and asked them if they were engaged in 
any particular or private conversation. On receiving a 


“” George H. Haynes, Charles Sumner (Philadelphia, 1909), p. 74. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 127 


negative response, I sat down and joined them in conver- 
sation. We had been there some minutes—I think we 
were alone in the antechamber—when a person, (if I 
recollect aright, it was Mr. Jones, a messenger of the Sen- 
ate,) rushed in, apparently in great trepidation, and said 
that somebody was beating Mr. Sumner. We heard this 
remark without any particular emotion; for my own part, 
I confess I felt none. I am not disposed to participate in 
broils of any kind. I remained very quietly in my seat; 
the other gentlemen did the same; we did not move. A 
minute or two afterward, another person passed through 
the Chamber and said that Mr. Sumner had been very 
badly beaten, and that the affray was over. Mr. Brooks's 
name was then mentioned for the first time. Hearing that 
the affray was over, and hearing that Mr. Brooks was 
concerned in the matter, I felt a little more interest, for I 
had really supposed that it was some ordinary scuffle. I 
did not know from what cause it originated, and was not 
disposed to meddle in it. 


Slidell finally did muster enough interest to 
enter the senate chamber, where he learned more 
details of the tragedy, without, however, seeing 
the victim, and soon returned to the ante-room 
“with the intention of resuming the conversation 
(somewhat of an interesting character) which 
had been interrupted by this affray.” But he was 
not thus to avoid all encounter with Sumner, for 
in leaving to go home, by a door-way which he had 
no idea that Sumner would use also, he came upon 
him face to face, “leaning on two persons whom 
I did not recognize. His face was covered with 
blood.” 

Slidell continued this process of self-condemna- 
tion before the bar of history in words which 


128 JOHN SLIDELL 


would have done full justice to the priest and the 
Levite as they passed by the bleeding victim of 
robbery and pillage. “I am not particularly fond 
of scenes of any sort. I have no associations or 
relations of any kind with Mr. Sumner; I have 
not spoken to him for two years. I did not think 
it necessary to express my sympathy, or make any 
advances toward him. If I had continued, I 
should have crossed his path, and interrupted his 
progress to a sofa; he was evidently faint and 
weak. I very naturally turned in another direc- 
tion; and instead of passing through the ante- 
room, entered the Senate Chamber in this direc- 
tion, [through the side door. |” From all of which, 
Slidell drew the moral that those who induced 
Congress to make a formal investigation of the 
incident had no other object than “‘to deceive the 
public and make a false impression on popular 
opinion.”’*? 

One or two more aspects of Slidell’s life in the 
senate should be dwelt upon before a return to 
the electoral canvass of 1856. One is the brief but 
highly significant item that Slidell in July, 1856, 
was seeking to abrogate the Treaty of 1842 which 
bound the United States to cooperate with Great 
Britain ina patrol of the African coast.** Another 


* Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, pp. 
1304-1305. May 27, 1856. 


“ Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, lst and 2nd Sessions, p. 
1477. July 26, 1856. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 129 


was the dilemma created in the strict-construction 
mind of Slidell by the question of internal im- 
provements. Here, even more than in the matter 
of voting contrary to the instructions of the Louis- 
iana legislature, lay the basis for philosophical 
contradiction. Slidell was a strict constructionist. 
Public improvements under national auspices were 
a perpetual object of suspicion and disapproval. 
Nevertheless, it was Slidell’s fate to represent a 
Mississippi River state eternally dependent on 
national aid against the ravages of the waters. 
As Slidell phrased the difficulty, “I have never 
doubted that a general system of internal im- 
provements, or appropriations for making specific 
improvements within a State, by the General Gov- 
ernment, not of a national character, were at 
variance with the spirit and principles of the Con- 
stitution. The great difficulty with me has been 
to define the line where the national character of 
improvements ceases and the local character be- 
gins.” He frankly avowed that expediency here 
entered with him asa determining factor. Appro- 
priations for work on the Mississippi counter- 
balanced at times his natural qualms of theory. 
Thus he voted for a bill in 1854 which he felt that 
the President was entirely justified in vetoing, the 
more so as “‘the bill had intentionally been made as 
offensive to him as possible.’”’ Of a more recent 
bill, framed on more correct principles, he be- 
lieved, however, that Pierce’s veto was unjustified, 


130 JOHN SLIDELL 


and cited even Calhoun, the great apostle of strict 
construction, as satisfied with both the constitu- 
tionality and the expediency of an improvement 
on the Ohio River below the falls at Louisville. 
The mischief of it was that a vicious circle of 
reasoning was depriving New Orleans of a navy 
yard, because the channel was too shallow, and of 
deeper channels, because there was no navy yard 
—‘a mode of argument reprobated by all logicians 
from the days of Aristotle. Jeremy Bentham 
would have classed it among the weakest of all 
fallacies.” He then examined the presidential veto 
in detail, with its objection that the improvements 
desired were part of a general system, not in 
harmony with the principles of the Democracy. 
In reply, he reprehended “the slur which the 
President, unintentionally I trust, has thus cast 
upon the Democratic Senators who voted for this 
bill. For myself, I repudiate the insinuation as 
unfounded in fact. I have had no understanding, 
express or implied, to sustain any of the numer- 
ous appropriations for rivers and harbors now on 
the Calendar. I shall examine and judge of each 
on its own merits. There are many of them that 
can never receive my vote.” The bill, it may be 
added, passed over the President’s veto by 31 to 
12, a victory for Slidell.*® 


* Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, pp. 
1542-1543. July 7, 1856. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 131 


In August, he gave to the senate a detailed 
explanation of the need of a survey, looking to- 
ward extensive improvements at the mouth of the 
Atchafalaya, an outlet for the Red River.*®° He 
even deviated so far from the theory of every 
state for itself as to recommend the national ap- 
propriation of $15,000 for the purchase of a fresh 
stock of sugar-cane in Louisiana. His justifica- 
tion was that such action would lower the price of 
sugar to consumers in general.*” 

Meanwhile, it was necessary to maintain a 
watchful supervision over the campaign of Buch- 
anan. Fundamental policies and small questions 
of detail alike concerned Slidell. In communicat- 
ing to Buchanan the result of his nomination, his 
lieutenant pointed out that the first opportunity 
should be utilized to pay a deserved compliment to 
the Old Line Whigs, many of whom, as Slidell 
had foreseen, were coming into the Democratic 
fold. 

In furthering Buchanan’s prospects, Slidell left 
little to the chance that Buchanan himself might 
think of the right thing to say and do. He re- 
minded him to thank Pierce for his endorsement. 
He warned him that Pierce, who at heart desired 
his defeat, could accomplish this only by prolong- 
ing the troubles in Kansas. He recited the sinister 
plan of Davis to withdraw United States troops, 

“Tbid., p. 1958. August 6, 1856. 


“ Tbid., p. 2113. August 15, 1856. 
““ Washington, June 14, 1856. 


132 JOHN SLIDELL 


leaving the territory to anarchy, and concluded 
that if Pierce accepted this advice, it would be 
necessary to denounce him, even at the cost of 
some Southern votes, for the sake of holding the 
North in line. If the worst should come to the 
worst, he hoped that Douglas could be persuaded 
to take the initiative in such a move. Meanwhile, 
has Buchanan remembered to write to Cass and 
Douglas? Cass has been to Pierce to remonstrate 
against the proposed removal of troops. Douglas 
has refrained from doing so on the ground of a 
breach with the President, with whom he had no 
influence.*® 

A few days later, Slidell was warning Buchanan 
to keep close watch of the Lancaster papers, any 
indiscretion on the part of whose editors would be 
attributed to him. Already Phelps of Missouri 
was complaining of one such editorial, very 
friendly to Benton. And Benton, Slidell reminds 
the candidate, has not the confidence of any of 
Buchanan’s friends. For himself, he says, “I 
confess that I have strong prejudices against Ben- 
ton which may biass my judgment & I hope but 
do not expect that my apprehensions of his treach- 
‘ery may not be realised.” Another uncertain 
quantity is Soulé. Nothing will be gained by his 
support, yet his open hostility should not be 
courted.°° 


* Washington, June 17, 1856. 
°° Washington, July 4, 1856. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 133 


Ranging the entire political horizon, Slidell 
could not ignore the German element in the 
Northwest, and he counseled Buchanan to concili- 
ate their spokesman, Grund.*’ A far greater force 
than Grund, however, was Robert J. Walker, and, 
despite a natural predilection for Buchanan, he 
too must be won over, since he was governed by 
his antagonisms rather than by his friendships. 
“Walker is ardently your friend, but he is more 
ardently the enemy of Benton.” That unlucky 
article in the Lancaster Intelligencer favoring 
Benton had cost Buchanan the establishment by 
Walker, whose resources for such a venture were 
more than ample, of a newspaper in New York 
devoted to the Buchanan interest. But even now 
it might not be too late. He would soon be in 
New York. “Now pray write him at once & in- 
vite him to visit Wheatland & when he shall have 
talked with you an hour everything will be right. 
He is proud & sensitive & should be conciliated.” 
Slidell himself was taking care of Grund, whose 
objections were to Buchanan’s friends, not to the 
candidate himself. He was gifted and a power 
among the Germans. But the real issue was 
Walker. On no account must Buchanan fail to 
write to him.°? 

Two days later, Grund was Slidell’s chief 
theme. Buchanan had only to give the word and 


* Washington, July 17, 1856. 
Washington, July 18, 1856. 


134 : JOHN SLIDELL 


he would enter the lists with enthusiasm as a cor- 
respondent for the Philadelphia Ledger and other 
papers. In reaching such a decision, Buchanan 
must remember that the matter was near to the 
heart of both Senators Bright and Douglas. 

In the midsummer of 1856, Slidell was far from 
well, but his reports lose nothing in vigor from 
their writer’s infirmities. Kentucky will be the 
cynosure of the doubtful states to the South. 
Maryland was already safe, Cass and Toombs 
never having seen greater enthusiasm than at 
Frederick. Congress would soon adjourn. The 
Black Republicans would not dare defeat the ap- 
propriation bills. “If they do, the Senate will not 
yield an inch. For myself I should not regret to 
see them taking that course. We should have a 
foretaste of the consequences of disunion. I be- 
lieve that it would produce a general panic & 
bankruptcy in the Northern States. we at the 
South have so little for the money expended 
among us that we should comparatively suffer but 
little embarrassment.”°? But even Black Republi- 
cans were evidently forgotten when “Everything 
looks bright & even the croakers are silent.’’®* 

At the end of September, with the national elec- 
tion but a few weeks away, Slidell emphasizes the 
importance of carrying the state election in Penn- 
sylvania for its sentimental effect elsewhere. “In 


* Senate Chamber, August 9, 1856. 
* Washington, August 12, 1856. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 135 


this view we have said that every dollar con- 
tributed for PennsylY¥# would economise ten in 
New York.” He encloses a letter from Stuart of 
Michigan putting the case with even less reserve. 
“In my opinion it [Pennsylvania] is the great 
battle of the campaign. And if any amount of 
labor and money will secure it, they should be ex- 
pended.®® On Pennsylvania hung the decision of 
Kentucky and Tennessee, whereas success in 
Pennsylvania would insure large majorities in the 
fifteen southern states and in all the doubtful 
free states. With so much at stake, Slidell was 
none too sure of Pennsylvania prospects; “‘for the 
first time since your nomination, I have felt 
alarmed.’’°® 

In the excitement of the campaign, Slidell per- 
mitted himself an expression which should be 
accepted only with qualifications. In a letter to 
the corresponding secretary of the Democratic 
central committee at New Orleans, he did not 
“hesitate to declare that if Frémont be elected, the 


*° Stuart to Slidell, Kalamazoo, September 18, 1856, forwarded 
in Slidell to Buchanan, New York, September 29, 1856. See also 
Daily True Delta, October 10, 1861. “SHAMELESS CON- 
FESSION OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE. The following is 
taken from the N. Y. Herald . . . Weed acknowledges the 
soft impeachment (corruption) in the ff. Painful as the con- 
fession is, we are bound, in truth and from knowledge, to say 
that James Buchanan was elected President, and this great and 
then happy and glorious republic ruined, simply because Messrs. 
Wendell, Forney and Belmont raised $50,000 more money to be 
expended in Pennsylvania, than William A. Hall, Truman Smith 
and the writer of this article could procure for the same object.” 


58 Slidell to Buchanan, October 4, 1856. Enclosing letter from 
Ward to Slidell, Louisville, September 30, 1856. 


136 JOHN SLIDELL 


Union cannot and ought not to be preserved.” 
Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that 
Slidell, according to his light, was still a Union 
man, and that his very advocacy of Buchanan was 
an effort to hold together the Union, since he be- 
lieved that he had found the man for the task. So 
that his utterance, though indiscreet and regret- 
table, was scarcely “the insane ebullition of 
heated partisanship” which the Daily Picayune 
condemned.” 

This was on the eighth day of October. By the 
seventeenth he had seen the shadows flee away. 
With Pennsylvania and Indiana secure, “The 
Union is now safe, but we must endeavor to make 
your majority overwhelming.” To that end, 
everything possible must be done to heal the party 
dissensions in New York. Slidell will go there 
in person. Has Buchanan any instructions ?°* 
Once arrived, he found that prospects exceeded 
anticipations. In only one congressional district 
was friction still serious, and with the tide so 
favorable, victory was beyond doubt, “but I shall 


* The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, October 8, 1856. The com- 
ment of George Bancroft upon this is also very severe. ‘‘But Slidell, 
as if Buchanan had not already enough to carry, adds his voice 
for a contingent breaking up of the Union, & Choate openly coun- 
sels the same, if his words have any meaning. Oh! for a voice of 
true democracy! But were a man to utter the truth, this bastard 
race that controls the organization, this unproductive hybrid begot 
by Southern arrogance upon Northern subserviency, would, I dare 
say, go raving.’ Marcy Papers. Library of Congress, Folio 72. 
Bancroft to Marcy, September 24, 1856. Also printed in Life 
of Bancroft. 


5 Washington, October 17, 1856. 


IN THE SENATE 1853 TO 1857 137 


be only half satisfied if your triumph be not over- 
whelming.” In a postscript, courteously, as an 
afterthought, is the added cheer that “‘the financial 
question has been attended to.’’>® 

It only remained to congratulate the victor, 
which Slidell did in a note both of encouragement 
and warning. “You are not to lie in a bed of 
roses for the next four years, but I feel the most 
entire confidence that you will be able to be [sic] 
build up & consolidate a sound homogeneous na- 
tional democracy that can defy the attacks of 
fanatics north & south. I have almost as little 
sympathy with the Rhett school of politicians as 
with the Know nothing ruffans of Baltimore & 
New Orleans.’®° The election of his friend—iti 
is scarcely too daring to say protégé—Buchanan ; 
so distinctly marks an era in the life of Slidell | 
that one can scarcely regard it as other than the’ 
climax of his career. It was in a sense the third ° 
act of a tragedy.” A slowly gathering momentum 
lifted Slidell to the senate, his friend to the Presi- 
dency, in each case the goal of a career. From| 
then on the action, though not at once apparent, 
led to a catastrophe. 


® New York, October 31, 1856. 
® Washington, November 13, 1856. 


CHAPTER Yi 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 


UCCESS having been achieved at the polls, it 

remained to organize the administration and to 
formulate its policies. To neither of these prob- 
lems was Slidell indifferent, though his advice and 
conduct in both were the essence of discretion. In 
foreign policy, he expressed himself to Buchanan 
as opposed to “any extension of the novel and 
false principle introduced into our foreign policy 
by the Clayton & Bulwer treaty & I could only be 
induced with extreme reluctance to give my vote 
for its ratification by the desire to relieve your ad- 
ministration from embarrassment.”* In domestic 
concerns, he asserted that any rumors to the effect 
that he was busying himself as to cabinet appoint- 
ments were utterly without foundation.” But he 
entreated Buchanan to come to Washington no 
later than early February. ‘You will of course be 
immensely annoyed, but I feel that you cannot 
correctly feel the public pulse anywhere else.”* A 
letter of this period from Robert M. McLane to 

* Washington, December 27, 1856. 


? Senate Chamber, January 5, 1857. 
> A second letter of January 5, 1857. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 139 


Howell Cobb reveals very clearly the position 
which Slidell was deemed by other politicians to 
hold in the make-up of the cabinet—a position to 
which his services to the President Elect unques- 
tionably entitled him. 


I went over fully with Slidell last night the views I 
expressed to you in the morning, and urged him to write 
Mr. B. explaining in detail all the motives and impulses 
that prompted certain Southern States Rights senators in 
their counsels, challenging Mr. B’s attention to the fact that 
the senators from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas 
had not and would not assume the responsibility of recom- 
mending Mr. Walker for the State Department and that 
the senators from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and 
Arkansas had not and would not be united in such a 
recommendation, there being in truth but one from each 
of these states that had or would take the responsibility. 
Slidell said he would write and write fully. . . 4 


Assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, 
Slidell really could not ignore cabinet appoint- 
ments. He congratulated Buchanan that Bright 
of Indiana, by returning to the senate, relieved 
him of the embarrassment of breaking with 
Douglas on that issue. But, on the other hand, he 
warned that there must be no appointment of a 
Douglas partisan, for Douglas was altogether too 
high and mighty, setting up to control not merely 
Illinois but the whole Northwest. The old ani- 


*U. B. Phillips, The Correspondence of Toombs, Stephens, and 
Cobb, R. M. McLane to H. Cobb, Baltimore, February 14, 1857. 


140 JOHN SLIDELL 


mosity, laid aside for the campaign only, was de- 
veloping into a bitter feud. As Slidell interpreted 
it, Douglas behaved “like a Malay maddened,” 
who, in his frenzy against Bright, included Slidell 
for defending him in his absence. “TI have had to 
be very cool to prevent an open rupture with him 
& was obliged at last to tell him that when J ceased 
to be his friend & became his enemy it would not 
be necessary for him to have recourse to third 
parties, but would discover it by my altered bear- 
ing.” Nevertheless, the Northwest could not be 
ignored in Buchanan’s cabinet, and in view of 
Douglas and his rivals, General Cass was its only 
available statesman. Any objections to Cass could 
be overcome by the appointment of a capable 
assistant. He was the undoubted man for the 
state department. His appointment to that post, 
moreover, would relieve Buchanan of an embar- 
rassing alternative between Cobb and Walker. 
Walker had great talents, but his friends con- 
trolled him. They were dangerous men. Of the 
two, Cobb was the safer, but Buchanan knew them 
as well as Slidell. One place should go to an Old 
Line Whig. Here Benjamin of Louisiana would 
be Slidell’s nominee. One more appointment, and 
Slidell is done. The navy, if it was to escape 
utter ruin, required, during the next four years, a 
“firm, prompt, severe man.” In conclusion, Slidell 
apologized for intruding on the cabinet question, 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 141 


but pleaded for his suggestions the rare merit of 
unselfishness.° 

Buchanan having decided to visit Washington, 
the question arose where to lodge the President- 
Elect. The National Hotel was unsafe because of 
an epidemic; Brown’s, in the neighborhood, might 
have been contaminated; and Willard’s savored 
too much of abolitionism.® Buchanan decided for 
himself on the National, and Slidell could only 
warn him not to eat or sleep there.’ More thrill- 
ing, even if not more important, was the still 
vexed question of the cabinet. Cass had con- 
sented to head the department of state, agreeing 
very handsomely to leave the naming of his assis- 
tant to Buchanan. The candidate under dis- 
cussion for the attorney generalship was, by 
very reliable accounts, unfit.2 Some appointment, 
Slidell positively insisted, must go to Toucey.°® 
“Allow me to say that the regret & disappoint- 
ment at the omission of Mr. Toucey’s name would 
be greater than you can well imagine & that it will 
be most sensibly felt by your faithful friend &c, 
John slidell > 

Notwithstanding his many claims to Buch- 
anan’s favor, Slidell was modest in his requests. 

* Washington, February 14, 1857. 

® Washington, February 18, 1857. 

* Washington, February 23, 1857. 

® Senate Chamber, February 19, 1857. 


® Telegram of February 25, 1857. 
** Senate Chamber, February 25, 1857. 


142 JOHN SLIDELL 


The patronage of Louisiana was his for the ask- 
ing,’ but outside the state he made few recom- 
mendations. Governor Pratt of Maryland, an Old 
Line Whig, seemed to him the logical appointee as 
naval officer at Baltimore.” In fact, recognition 
of Maryland Whigs constituted a conscious policy 
with Slidell as the best hope of winning their state 
to the true faith.'? Those who already walked in 
the light were mainly gathered at White Sulphur 
Springs, Virginia, and the President was urged to 
mingle with these southern admirers. On his fail- 
ure to do so, however, Slidell put in writing what 
Buchanan would have gathered for himself, had 
he come; nainely, the unanimity of southern disap- 
proval of Walker’s course in Kansas during the 
summer of 1857 and of southern confidence that 
Buchanan would at the first opportunity signify 
his own dissatisfaction with his emissary.** 

The nomination and election of Buchanan natu- 
rally increased Slidell’s personal prestige, and he 
was viewed as an important if not in fact the 
leading spokesman in the senate for the incoming 
administration. In February, 1857, he declined to 
concur in passing a eulogium upon the retiring 


" The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, September 26, 1857. From 
Washington, September 25. “It is understood that Mr. Gayarré, 
the historian of Louisiana, has been selected for minister to Spain, 
but the appointment has been deferred in deference to Senator 
Slidell.” 


% March 11, 1857. 
* White Sulphur Springs, Virginia, July 26, 1857. 
“White Sulphur Springs, Virginia, August 12, 1857. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 143 


postmaster general.** On February 28, he wiped 
out old scores with Marcy, and perhaps Pierce, by 
an elaborate condemnation of the state department 
for the impropriety and even discourtesy of its 
action in referring the establishment of a new 
mission to Persia not to the committee on foreign 
relations but to that on finance. He advocated a 
hands-off policy, being opposed to a mission the 
commercial significance of which would be slight, 
yet the very existence of which would make for 
intrigue and for the unnecessary commitment of 
the United States in questions of primary interest 
to Great Britain, France, and Russia. His argu- 
ment failed to convince by a vote of 25 to 21."° 
One last fond look at Cuba evidently lay behind 
a proposal advanced by Slidell in the first Con- 


gress of the new administration to vest in the { 


President authority, subject to certain restric- 
tions, to suspend the neutrality laws. Such a 
course would legalize filibustering and open the 
way to fresh projects against Cuba. On the other 
hand, Slidell made it clear that he was no friend 
to one filibusterer, William Walker, who was at 
that time much in the public eye. Although he 
condemned Walker’s recent seizure by Commodore 
Paulding as a breach of international law, he de- 
nied to the victim possession of a single requisite 


* Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, 3rd Session, Appendix, p. 
304. February 27, 1857. 

* Congressional Globe, 34th Congress, 3rd Session, p. 1020. Feb- 
ruary 28, 1857. 


— 


———— 


144 JOHN SLIDELL 


for the part he had chosen to play; “he is neither 
a good soldier nor a prudent administrator. His 
former expedition abundantly demonstrates his 
glaring incapacity alike in the field and the 
cabinet.” 

One of the early acts, it will be recalled, of 
Slidell’s career in the senate, was in connection 
with the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and his proposal 
to eliminate the Missouri Compromise line. The 
decision reached in 1854 had risen by 1858 to con- 
found both friend and foe. And Slidell, the 
moderate, in a speech on behalf of recognition by 
Congress of the Lecompton constitution, now 
stood revealed as skeptical of the ability of his 
moderate friend Buchanan and other well-wishers 
of the Union much longer to maintain its integrity. 
He gave warning that the seeming apathy of the 
South must not be mistaken for indifference. 

If we reject this bill, the agitation gotten up by plotting 
and unscrupulous politicians, operating upon the passions 
and prejudices of the people of the free States, will be 
prolonged and aggravated until a peaceful solution of this 
vital question of slavery will become impossible. We have 
every reason, so far as material interests are concerned, 
to be a united and harmonious people; but we cannot shut 
our eyes to the melancholy fact that at this day there pre- 
vails between the masses of the people of the eastern and 
southern States as deep a feeling of alienation—I might 
say of animosity—as ever existed between England and 


France. The fate of this measure will probably decide 
whether this feeling shall be kept alive and embittered 


™ Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, lst Session, pp. 461-462. 
January 28, 1858. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 145 


until longer continuance of a connection so distasteful and 
repulsive to both parties, shall be intolerable, or whether 
we shall strive by a generous emulation in the interchange 
of good offices, by an abandonment of all irritating sub- 
jects of discussion, to become once more what we were i 
the infancy of the Republic—States sisters in feeling as in 
name. What I have said as to the consequences of the 
rejection of this bill is in no spirit of bravado or menace; 
it is uttered more in sorrow than in anger and with a full 
sense of the responsibility which attaches to it. I antici- 
pate the old clamor of treason and revolution against all 
who venture to speak the truth on this question; but if it 
were not told now, it might be too late to avert the danger 
that threatens the existence of a Union which in better 
days I was wont to believe would be perpetual.1® 


Slidell found the keynote for a more construct- 
ive speech than that just quoted in the legal aspects 
of Walker’s seizure by Paulding. Drawing from 
numerous authorities on the Law of Nations,— 
De Rayneval, Wheaton, Vattel, Grotius, Bynker- 


** Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, 
pp. 116, 117. March 15, 1858. See also for comment on this 
speech the Louisiana Courier, March 26, 1858. “It is a short and 
particularly sensible talk on the subject, and every word is directly 
to the point. Without pretending to be a set speech, without the 
smallest claim to eloquence or brilliancy, it is one of the very best 
and most reliable expositions of the intentions of the administra- 
tion which could be desired. Mr. Slidell has no nonsense about 
him. He does not foam at the mouth about the rights of the 
South. Unlike most men of Northern birth and education, he 
does not pretend to any special enthusiasm for the institutions of 
his adopted State, and he calls on his future, without appealing to 
his past actions, to justify his course and his position . . . we 
balk a little at his partial disclaimer of being a strong States Rights 
man, and a little more at the reasons he assigns for his advocacy 
of Mr. Pugh’s amendment, declaring the rights of Kansas to alter 
her constitution whenever she chooses, no matter what may be 
the provisions of that constitution in regard to its own amendment ; 
but we are willing to admit his claim to be judged by his future 
acts, when the time for action shall fortunately, or as he thinks, 
‘unfortunately,’ arrive.” 


146 JOHN SLIDELL 


schoeck, and Martens, among others—he con- 
cluded that Walker’s seizure was technically legal, 
but mistaken in policy through its effect of con- 
verting the captive into a pseudo-martyr. But 
America, Slidell contended, was quite unneces- 
sarily restricted in the freedom with which her 
citizens were permitted to enlist in foreign wars. 
Our President, whose control over diplomacy 
gave Congress no alternative than to sustain him 
or disgrace the country, might as well have equal 
right with the British sovereign to suspend neu- 
trality laws. Bestowal of such a grant would, 
under existing circumstances, scarcely involve us 
with Cuba, where all attempts “except by negoti- 
ation, should, in my opinion, now be abandoned.” 
In Mexico it was otherwise. “Should Spain inter- 
vene there, Americans would have a part in the 
contest. I wish this to be done legally.”*® 

The first congress of Buchanan found Slidell a 
watch dog of the treasury. He objected to $10,- 
O00 and expenses as too high a compensation to 
Townsend Harris for the commercial treaty with 
Siam,”° and similarly opposed a grant of more 
than one year’s pay to the widow of a certain Cap- 
tain Herndon, whose husband had died under 
circumstances of singular heroism.** The same 


*” Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, Ist Session, April 8, 1858, 
pp. 1538-1541. 

> Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, Ist Session, p. 1625. 
April 16, 1858. 

7 Tbid., pp. 1960-1961. May 5, 1858. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 147 


session found him also as something of a bull dog 
in his attitude toward Stephen A. Douglas, with 
whom he came into conflict in open senate. 
Douglas had been speaking on Kansas. He was 
interrupted by laughter. He turned in anger, 
saying: 

I confess I do not like this mode of trying to laugh 
down propositions. If gentlemen can answer them it is 
one thing; but to laugh them down, is another. 

Mr. Slidell: I confess I do not at all like the tone of 
the Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. Douglas: Very well. 

Mr. Slidell: It is extremely arrogant and offensive. 

Mr. Douglas: I desire to say in reply, that this laugh- 
ing had proceeded in a manner that was exceedingly an- 
noying. I never interrupt a gentleman on the floor. I 
will answer him after he concludes, if I think proper. 


Slidell then pleaded that he was not alone, but 
declared, “If the Senator from Illinois wishes to 
single me out for any criticisms of that sort, he 
will find me ready to respond on all occasions, at 
all times, and in every way.” The incident closed 
with the comment by Douglas that Slidell was not 
the only responsible senator. ‘There is nothing 
remarkable in that; and in that assurance he does 
not stand isolated as the only member in the body 
that holds himself so.’’”* 

The subject of internal improvements, of per- 
ennial interest to all congressmen, those from 


2 Pangtcssiattal Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2536. May 
31, 1858. 


148 JOHN SLIDELL 


Louisiana by no means least, elicited from Slidell 
in the spring of 1858 a pronouncement highly 
creditable to his consistency and his integrity. On 
previous occasions he had championed improve- 
ments, more especially those on the Mississippi, 
yet had retained enough of his fundamental theory 
to defend Pierce on one occasion for a veto of im- 
provements on constitutional grounds. Slidell 
now expressed himself as the convinced enemy of 
national improvements, however justifiable they ~ 
seemed in individual cases, owing to the fact that 
bills of this character seldom secured the requisite 
support unless concessions were made for im- 
provements wholly useless for any other purpose 
than “pork,” an expression which Slidell very 
clearly defined but did not employ, possibly be- 
cause it had not then gained currency. “From 
these considerations, I am inclined to think that, 
on the ground of expediency alone, apart from all 
constitutional scruples, no bill of a similar char- 
acter will hereafter receive my support. I shall 
adhere to this opinion unless I see very good 
reasons to change it. Perhaps an overflowing 
Treasury might induce me, in some degree, to 
modify it; but, with the views I now entertain, I 
do not consider it probable.’’”* 

As leader of the Buchanan forces in the sen- 
ate, Slidell was in charge, following the breach 


8 Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2673, June 
5, 1858. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 149 


between Douglas and the President, of the cam- 
paign to read Douglas out of the party. One tilt 
in the engagement has already been noted. But 
it was deemed advisable to carry the war into the 
enemy’s country, and to this end, in the summer 
of 1858, Slidell made an extended trip through the 
Northwest, with a view, there is little doubt, of 
undermining Douglas among his own constituents. 

Immediately following Slidell’s visit to Chicago, 
a local newspaper carried the story of horrible 
treatment meted out to the slaves on the Missis- 
sippi plantation administered by Douglas in the 
interest of his children, the tale being that they 
were farmed out to a factor at fifteen dollars a 
head and sublet by him to others, who abused them 
so shamefully that neighboring slave owners 
viewed them as a disgrace to the system. It is 
remarked by one biographer of Douglas that “ex- 
plicit denial of the story came from Slidell some 
weeks after the election, when the slander had 
accomplished the desired purpose.”** A more cir- 
cumstantial version of the story relates that it was 
openly understood among the followers of the 
President that Mr. Slidell was the main instru- 
ment through which the federal patronage in 
Illinois was redistributed and that Dr. Daniel 
Brainard, in particular, as surgeon of the marine 
hospital, owed his appointment to the friendship 
of Francis Grund and Senator Slidell, “Par nobile 


* Allen Johnson, Stephen A. Douglas (Macmillan, 1908), p. 391. 


150 JOHN SLIDELL 


fratrum.” This is the more interesting as Brai- 
nard’s name was associated with the origin of the 
Douglas canard. It was not until the New Or- 
leans Picayune characterized it as such,”® that the 
Chicago Press and Tribune, in which it first ap- 
peared, justified itself on the ground that: 

We have only to say that the story came to us from a 
personal friend of Mr. Slidell—a gentleman of character 
and influence in this city—and he assured us that he had 
the statement from Slidell himself, during his visit to 


Chicago, while the late canvass was going on. His name 
is at the service of anyone authorized to demand it. 


Demand arose that this man of character be 
named. Finally, on December 18, Slidell pub- 
lished in the Washington Union a formal denial 
of having told the story to Brainard or anyone 
else, intimating that Brainard either did not make 
the statement concerning Douglas to the Chicago 
newspaper, or else that he was guilty of a ma- 
licious falsehood. Accordingly, on December 23, 
Brainard addressed the editors of the Press and 
Tribune denying that he had ever made to them 
any such statement as that of which he was ac- 
cused. On the day following the editors of the 
paper gave Brainard, and by implication Slidell, 
the lie direct. 


* The Daily Picayune, December 12, 1858. “Those who know 
Mr. McHatton know that he is incapable of cruelty to his slaves; 
and none will ever believe that Mr. Slidell would stoop so low as 
to utter a deliberate falsehood to an Abolition editor, to injure Mr. 
Douglas. The whole thing was an electioneering dodge, and 
scarcely deserve the attention of the respectable parties whose 
names have become involved in it.” 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 151 


In July last, about the time of Mr. Slidell’s visit to Chi- 
cago, one of the editors of this paper was informed by Dr. 
Daniel Brainard, Professor of Surgery in the Rush Medi- 
cal College, in a conversation invited by the doctor him- 
self, in his own office, that Mr. Douglas’ slaves in the 
South were “the subjects of inhuman and disgraceful 
treatment—that they were hired out to a factor at fifteen 
dollars per annum each—that he, in turn, hired them out 
to others in lots, and that they were ill-fed, over-worked, 
and in every way so badly treated that they were spoken 
of in the neighbourhood where they are held as a disgrace 
to all slaveholders and the system they support.’ The 
authority given for these facts, by Dr. Brainard, was the 
Hon. John Slidell, of Louisiana. 


On the twenty-eighth Brainard, in another let- 
ter, admitted that he had actually had such a 
conversation with the editors but denied that he 
had given Slidell as his authority. He did not, 
however, name any other authority, and the evi- 
dence inclines strongly, in this question of veracity 
between the doctor and the editor, in favor of the 
lattere. 

In August, 1858, upon his arrival at Saratoga 
after this trip through the Northwest, Slidell ad- 
dressed to the President a memorandum on condi- 
tions in the Douglas camp, the more interesting 
because of his alleged connection with this men- 
dacious attempt to discredit Douglas in his own 
constituency. Slidell made no specific allusion to 
the charge, but did recommend the removal at 
once of Douglas partisans from federal office. 


* James W. Sheahan, The Life of Stephen A. Douglas (New 
York, 1860), pp. 439-422. 


152 JOHN SLIDELL 


By requesting the appointment as surgeon of the 
marine hospital of Dr. Daniel Brainard he 
strengthens a conviction, which denial will not 
silence, that it really was he who gave Brainard 
the story so promptly communicated by him to the 
press, which ultimately, after it gained circulation 
in the South, embarrassed Slidell himself.** 
Slidell, according to all the canons of precedent, 
was entitled to a great place in the Buchanan ad- 
\ ministration, and he was repeatedly offered the 
_ mission to Paris.” He refused it on the ground 
| of political necessity in Louisiana and of his dis- 
inclination, with world affairs running smoothly, 
to accept ‘a mere mission of parade.” But, unless 
Belmont would accept, he did feel impelled to rec- 
ommend for the mission at Madrid his colleague, 
Benjamin, whose appointment “will not only be 
satisfactory but gratifying to me in every way.’’® 
» In January, 1859, Slidell introduced a bill, 
‘known as the $30,000,000 bill, for an appropri- 
ation looking toward the acquisition of Cuba by 
negotiation.*® This being referred to the com- 
mittee on foreign relations, of which Slidell was 
| himself a member, a report favorable to the bill 


7" Saratoga, New York, August 8, 1858. 

78 The cordiality of Slidell’s relations with the French legation 
at Washington was undoubtedly a recommendation for the post. 
In the words of the Comtesse de St. Roman, “The French Lega- 
tion as a whole was in the most intimate contact with my parents.” 

8 Atlantic City, August 22, 1858. 

2” Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 277. Jan- 
uary 10, 1859. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 153 


presently appeared from the pen of its sponsor, 
upon presentation of which it was moved that 
“two thousand extra copies” be printed “of the 
very lucid and able report just read by the Senator 
from Louisiana.’’*® In support of the bill, Slidell 
made the point that it was framed without con- 
sultation with the President, and that, contrary 
to the opinion of the senator from New York, it 
could not possibly advance the personal fortunes 
of Buchanan. What he probably meant was the 
political interests of the President and his party. 
Slidell was willing to grant as much, ‘“‘and that, I 
think, is one of the best effects that will flow from 
the discussion of this subject.’’** 

In February Slidell presented a petition, strange 
to say, from citizens of New York, who might 
have been expected to proceed through their own 
senators, denouncing the monopoly oi public lands 
and asking that they be granted thereaiter to ac- 
tual settlers only.** At the same time he complained 
of the lack of discipline and the indifference 
of Democratic senators in their attitude toward 
the Cuban bill.** On the seventh he again pleaded 
this favorite cause,** and on the ninth he assured 
the senate that although the President had not 


*° Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 538. Jan- 
uary 24, 1859. 

* Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 687. Jan- 
uary 31, 1859, 

2 Tbhid., p. 772. February 3, 1859. 

% Tbid., p. 787. February 3, 1859. 

* [bid., p. 858. February 7, 1859. 


154 JOHN SLIDELL 


interfered in the strategy of the bill, “It would, 
however, be an unworthy affectation on my part 
to say that I was not perfectly persuaded that the 
President does desire, sincerely desire, that this 
bill should pass. I infer that, not from anything 
that he has said to me more than to others, but 
from the tenor of his message, and because this 
bill is in exact conformity with the spirit of his 
recommendation.’*° On the twenty-fifth he 
hinted that the President might readily be in 
possession of information, which it would be con- 
trary to public policy for him to publish, which 
would convince him that negotiations for the 
acquisition of Cuba were feasible at that time.** 

Another financial measure in which Slidell in- 
terested himself at this time was one in which, he 
was frank to say, his own affairs were involved. 
The custom house at New Orleans under construc- 
tion on land donated by the city, valued at $600,- 
000, was, in its perpetually unfinished condition, 
an obstruction to the business of New Orleans. 
As Slidell put it, “I am not exaggerating, when I 
say that my own personal interests, in the period 
of the last ten years, have been affected to the 
extent of more than fifteen or twenty thousand 
dollars by the diminution of rents in the immediate 
vicinity of that property.’ To ascertain the total 


* Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 906, Feb- 
ruary 9, 1859. 

#® Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1347. Feb- 
ruary 25, 1859. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 155 


loss to the community, he would multiply his own 
by fifty. Here was a warrant for the completion 
of the project and the restoration of prosperity 
to the New Orleans business center. Let the 
government act with promptness.** 

The conclusion of the Thirty-fifth Congress left 
Slidell free for a last death grapple with Soulé for 
control in Louisiana. Some excerpts from The 
Daily True Delta, an organ of Soulé, very graph- 
ically illustrate the malignity of the contest. 
Charges of Wall Street influence were as popular 
then as now, and Slidell was not immune. Thus 
an editorial of April 2, 1859, on “Our American 
Policy,” argues that it is financial magnates, not 
the citizenry, who determine our Mexican rela- 
tions. One might almost imagine himself reading 
a current issue of the Nation when he learns that 
“We are not to decide in favor of liberal princi- 
ples and republican government in Mexico, be- 
cause Slidell, Benjamin and others have a stu- 
pendous scheme to mature in Tehuantepec; nor 
make our influence paramount in Nicaragua, be- 
cause the actual Secretary of State and associates 
on Wall Street, New York, must make a rich job 
of the transit route.”** Three days later, under 
the caption “The Mass Meeting To-Night,” the 
editor allows himself a range of invective almost 


** Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1572. 
March 2, 1859. 


* The Daily True Delta, April 2, 1859. 


156 JOHN SLIDELL 


Ciceronian in scope. Slidell is depicted as a 
veritable Catiline when “fresh from the federal 
city, backed by the whole power of the most cor- 
rupt Administration which ever held power, he 
opens at the capital of the State a species of 
tavern, and there, surrounded by the lowest, the 
meanest and the most degraded, arrogates to him- 
self the right of saying who shall fill every public 
office in the State for four years to come.”*? Let 
any man who doubted the sinister influence of the 
boss visit the groggeries of St. Charles Street. 
“There the vulpine eye of Houmas Slidell is ever 
restlessly intent upon the individuals who throng 
those thoroughfares; there is his sojourning place 
until his schemes are matured and his plans are 
successful.”*° The question at issue, said the 
Delta, was “whether Slidell and Gallatin street, or 
the whole people of Louisiana, shall rule this 
commonwealth.”*? Warming to his theme, the 
editor continued: 


“Tf there be any of you disposed to relinquish the rights 
_ the laws have secured to you, to give up to persons like 
Slidell, who scruple at nothing that is necessary to pro- 
mote their interests, to aid in the reéstablishment of Galla- 
tin street ruffianism under Slidellian auspices, to be fol- 
lowed by a Thug reaction, from which you alone will be 
the sufferers; we have nothing to say except that you 
deserve the degradation, the contempt, and the outrages of 
which you were made: the victims.’’*? 


*® The Daily True Delta, April 5, 1859. 
Tbid. 
“t Tbid. 
© Ibid. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 157 


There is much more of the same sort, including 
various allusions to Slidell’s alleged propensity for 
gambling** and numerous bitter taunts at Slidell’s 
connection with the Houmas land swindle** and 
his defence by Benjamin, but the case for Soulé 
and the opposition is perhaps most neatly phrased 
in the issue of April 5, 1859, already quoted from. 
Under the caption “Democratic State Central 
Committee,” the editor affirms that “This is not, 
as the organ of Houmas Slidell would lead the 
public to suppose, a contest between factions of a 
common party ; it is, on the contrary, a contest be- 
tween men who repudiate and denounce ruffianism 
in every shape, who hold in detestation Plaque- 
mine frauds, cab votes, Gallatin street assassina- 
tions and Thuggery, and those who have, through 
years of exertion, sought to establish such pro- 
ceedings and thing's as part of the political system 
under which we live, and against which it is 
the duty of all honest men and good citizens to 
comtendy 7 

A letter from Slidell to Buchanan on May 2, 
1859, shows that attacks so violent as those hinted 
at above could not pass wholly unheeded. His 
optimism, however, was unruffled. “You will 
doubtless have heard or read of the attempt made 
in this State by Soulé & others to organize a new 
party composed of disaffected democrats & Know 


*® The Daily True Delta, April 12, 1859. 
“To be discussed later. 
* The Daily True Delta, April 5, 1859. 


ee 


158 JOHN SLIDELL 


Nothings—The opposition to your administration 
among a certain portion of professing democrats 
has existed ever since your inauguration but has 
not been openly avowed by the leaders until the 
meeting at which Soulé made so furious an on- 
slaught on you & your friends. I think it better 
thus, Soulé being a less dangerous foe than 
friend.” He looked for a decided majority in the 
state convention and the elimination of Soulé 
from the party councils.*® 

On the thirtieth Slidell was able to announce a 
victory more complete even than he had promised, 
and he now felt at liberty to accept the mission to 
Paris, in the event that Buchanan desired his 
services, with a view toward reconciling Napoleon 
III to American designs upon Cuba.** Coming 
two years after the original offer and refusal of 
the mission, this intimation from Slidell caused the 
President embarrassment, but he replied on June 
8th that if Slidell had made up his mind “finally 
& without peradventure to accept the mission,” its 
present incumbent would be sounded with a view 
to retirement. To which Slidell replied, very 
courteously, that as, after all, it appeared that 
Napoleon was not open to suggestion concerning 
Cuba, he had no motive for leaving the senate. 
“Pray then consider my former letter as not writ- 
ten, indeed were there no other reason for this 


*° New Orleans, May 2, 1859. 
“New Orleans, May 30, 1859 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 159 


request, the idea that you could be in the slightest 
degree embarrassed by a change in the mission 
would be to me a sufficient reason for declining 
it, however brilliant might be the prospects of 
success.”** Evidently relieved by this gracious ac- 
ceptance of the situation, Buchanan closed the 
incident with a letter of compliment. “I honestly 
believe there is no gentleman in the United States 
so peculiarly qualified for that position as your- 
self. It is for yourself to say whether you will 
accept it or not & I hope you may decide in such 
a manner as will best promote your own happiness 
& prosperity & that of your family.” 

Turning to another subject very near his own 
heart, Buchanan deprecated, what seemed to 
come from a reliable source, that Belmont had 
become a decided Douglas man. Slidell confirmed 
the report, his explanation for Belmont’s defec- 
tion being his failure to secure the mission at 
Madrid, a failure which Belmont imputed in no 
small degree to Slidell’s failure to exert himself 
on his behalf. Belmont entrusted to Slidell for 
delivery to the President a letter of indignant 
protest, which Slidell refused to deliver and rec- 
ommended its author to suppress. ‘This occurred 
I think in December last & I have since had no 
communication with Belmont, but have heard 
from others that he complains of me. I regret the 


“New Orleans, June, 1859. 
“ Buchanan to Slidell, June 24, 1859. 


160 JOHN SLIDELL 


alienation but shall take no pains to conciliate 
him.’°° Certainly a quarrel between Slidell and 
Belmont, the one the political the other the finan- 
cial prop of the Buchanan organization, was no 
favorable augury for the administration. 

The Thirty-sixth Congress, meeting for its first 
session in December, 1859, found Slidell in rdles 
of which some are familiar, others new. As might 
be expected, he was still working for an appropri- 
ation looking toward the acquisition of Cuba.** 
More novel was his objection to the issuance of 
bank notes by corporations within the District of 
Columbia.*? But, in his antipathy to a permanent 
franchise granting the streets of Washington to 
the Georgetown and Catoctin railroad company, 
he occupied ground with modern progressives, dis- 
tinctly in advance of his own day. He was willing 
to grant a thirty year franchise. At its expiration, 
“Tt seems to me that the property should revert 
to the cities of Washingon and Georgetown. The 
inconvenience to the public may otherwise be very 
great.” To the proposed charter he therefore 
offered an amendment that “at the expiration of 
said term [thirty years], the road, with all its fix- 
tures, running stock, and material of every kind, 
shall become the property of the cities of Wash- 
ington and Georgetown, in proportion of the 


® Slidell to Buchanan, July, 1859. 


5% Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, p. 199. De- 
cember 21, 1859. 


2 Tbid., p. 375. January 9, 1860, and p. 1396. March 28, 1860. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 161 


respective populations of said cities, as they may 
be shown to exist by the general decennial census 
of 1890.” 

To this enlightened plan opposition was raised 
by Brown of Mississippi and Cameron of Pennsyl- 
vania. Slidell countered by reminding Cameron 
of a canal from New Orleans to Lake Pontchar- 
train on which Cameron had been one of the chief 
contractors, in the franchise of which provision 
was inserted for eventual state ownership. If 
state ownership was possible in Louisiana, why 
was national ownership impossible in the District 
of Columbia? Regard should be had for the inter- 
est of posterity. “What will be the situation of 
Pennsylvania avenue thirty years hence, when this 
franchise expires, if these men are allowed to tear 
up the road, and destroy it?” But, upon the sug- 
gestion of a friend nearby, Slidell agreed to strike 
out the rolling stock and materials, leaving the 
road only and its fixtures to revert to the govern- 
ment.°? An attitude toward municipal franchise 
so enlightened as this deserves the close atten- 
tion of any who may be inclined to accept The 
Daily True Delta's estimate of Slidell as a mere 
manipulator of intrigue, quite destitute of ideals. 

Congress continued its session into June of 
1860. But the momentous convention to nominate 


° Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1599. April 
7, 1860. 


162 JOHN SLIDELL 


a new President drew Slidell for a space in April 
away from his seat in the senate into the political 
storm center at Charleston. Of Slidell at this 
convention a pen picture survives, drawn by a 
skilful hand, for Murat Halstead, its author, was 
worthy of the occasion which brought him to 
Charleston, a master journalist, one of the out- 
standing figures of his profession. He describes 
Slidell in action: 


“within, seated at a round table on which books, news- 
papers and writing material is scattered about, is a gentle- 
man with long, thin white hair, through which the top of 
his head blushes like the shell of a boiled lobster. The 
gentleman has also a cherry-red face, the color being that 
produced by good health, and good living joined to a florid 
temperament. His features are well cut, and the express- 
ion is that of a thoughtful, hard-working, resolute man of 
the world. He is a New Yorker by birth, but has made a 
princely fortune at the New Orleans bar. He is not a 
very eloquent man in the Senate, but his ability is unques- 
tioned; and it is universally known that he is with the 
; present Administration, the power behind the throne 
| greater than the throne itself. Mr. Buchanan is as wax 
in his fingers. The name of this gentleman is John Sli- 
dell. His special mission here is to see that Stephen A. 
Douglas is not nominated for the Presidency. If I am 
not much mistaken, he just now manipulated a few North- 
eastern men with such marvelous art, that they will pres- 
ently find that they are exceedingly anxious to defeat the 
nomination of Douglas, and they will believe that they 
arrived at the conclusion now coming uppermost in their 
minds in their own way.’’>4 


% Murat Halstead, A History of the National Political Conven- 
tions of the Current Presidential Campaign, (Columbus, 1860) 
pp. 12-13. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 163 


I have quoted the description first, but on the 
previous day Halstead had paid even higher 
tribute to the political influence of Slidell when he 
wrote that only the arrogance of the Douglas men 
induced Slidell to meddle in what was felt to be 
certain victory. “He will be here this evening, 
and will operate against Douglas. He is a match- 
less wire-worker, and the news of his approach 
causes a flutter. His appearance here means war 
to the knife. It means also, that the Administra- 
tion is uneasy on the Douglas question—and feel 
constrained to use every influence against the 
Squatty Giant of Illinois, whose nomination would 
be perdition to Buchanan, Slidell & Co.”®? Two 
more allusions to Slidell find place in Halstead’s 
account of these critical days. On April 29 he 
opines that the enemies of Douglas are making 
little headway. “Slidell and all the rest, have been, 
as it were, but taking up arms against a sea of 
troubles, and they have not made much progress 
toward ending them.”°* On the thirtieth he be- 
gins to see results gained by methods which he 
does not scruple to characterize. Not all followers 
of Douglas were trustworthy; some were leaky 
“and whenever the Convention adjourned they 
were found together buzzing and busy as green 
flies. It was known that Slidell & Co. were will- 


*® Murat Halstead, A History of the National Political Conven- 
tions of the Current Presidential Campaign, p. 7. April 21. 


© Thid., pp. 59-60. April 29, 1860. 


164 JOHN SLIDELL 


ing to buy all such fellows, and there was alarm 
in the camp of Douglas on the platform ques- 
tion.”°’ Testimony like this of Halstead’s, how- 
ever uncomplimentary to the political methods of 
Slidell, betokens a_ political influence which 
marked him as one of the great figures of the day. 
The man who divided his party in 1860, whatever 
his methods or motives, assumed no mean re- 
sponsibility for the vast consequences determined 
by that event. 

On returning to Congress from his interesting 
and fateful absence at Charleston, Slidell was 
occupied with various matters of routine of small 
interest or bearing upon his career. But his dis- 
approval of additional bounties to naval officers 
engaged in the capture of slaves has some inter- 
est, though the objection advanced was not that 
bounties were inappropriate but that those al- 
ready authorized were sufficient.°* His defence 
of himself before the United States senate 
against a charge of fraud leveled in Louisiana*® 
is significant not only for what he said, but 


" Tbid., p. 69, Charleston, April 30, 1860. 


* Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, p, 2211. May 
21, 1860. 


° See The Daily True Delta, New Orleans, March 15, 1859, for 
an extreme statement of the case against Slidell. “The Houmas 
Fraud.—The Washington correspondent of the St. Louis Repub- 
lican, writing on the 3rd instant, says: An animated discussion, 
involving much private feeling and the reputation of a distin- 
guished Senator from Louisiana, has been going on for some 
weeks, before the Committee on Private Land Claims of the Sen- 
ate. The facts are briefly these: - There exists a land claim in the 
State of Louisiana known as the Houmas claim, covering several 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 165 


also because he felt obliged to say it. His enemies 
had long ago fastened upon him the humorous but 
contemptuous soubriquet of “Houmas.” It fol- 
lowed him thereafter. He explained to Congress, 


hundred thousand acres of land, lying on the east side of the Mis- 
sissippi river, about 50 miles above New Orleans. This claim the 
Government refused to approve, but subsequently a patent was is- 
sued, and the settlers were referred to the courts for an investi- 
gation and test of title. The Court of Louisiana pronounced the 
patent void, and ordered it to be cancelled. In the meantime, Sen- 
ator Slidell had purchased a large interest in the claim and sued 
for the recovery of the purchase money he had paid. The law 
maxim of caveat emptor prevailed, and he lost the suit. At the 
close of the last session of Congress, a bill passed, authorizing the 
location of certain confirmations in Missouri. To this bill, Mr. 
Benjamin, colleague of Mr. Slidell in the Senate, reported an 
amendment and succeeded in having it incorporated in said bill as 
an additional section, confirming the location of the ‘Houmas Claim.’ 
This section legislated into the pocket of Mr. Slidell a half 
million of dollars, as it is charged by the settlers, and turned out 
of their homes about five hundred families. The sufferers have 
been before the Senate, complaining of this section of the Missouri 
bill as a wilful fraud upon them, and as a violation of their 
rights. The issue was distinctly made, and the result was, the 
Committee on Private Land Claims, over which Mr. Benjamin 
still presides, reported a resolution which passed the Senate, and 
is now before the House, suspending all action under that “second 
section” until the close of the thirty-sixth Congress. This was a 
triumph of our settlers, although only a suspension of the law. It 
indicates very clearly what the final action of Congress will be; 
and how far this action corroborates the charge of fraud which 
has been made, I leave for others to decide, as it is no part of my 
object or purpose to pass in judgment on the case, but only give 
the facts, curious as I deem them to be, to the readers of the 
Republican.” 

The Daily True Delta, September 19, 1859. . . . “And, more- 
over, is it not universally conceded that the Honorable Judah P. 
Benjamin is unrivaled as a statesman and a giant in intellect, 
towering a cubit above every other man in the United States Sen- 
ate, and no one can be found to question his legal ability, for he 
has framed a law for the State of Missouri intended to confirm 
land claims in Louisiana, in which his colleague only owns ten 
thousand acres, which it will require half a score of Philadelphia 
lawyers to explain, an importation not very likely to be acceptable 
to an overstocked market.” . . . Editorial thinks State Legis- 
lature will resent this move. 


166 JOHN SLIDELL 


that on land honorably patented he had paid costs, 
taxes, and assessments to an amount of $72,000 
and that, quite contrary to its rumored value of 
$1,000,000, he had offered it on the market at 
$40,000, with no bids received. $15,000 was its 
assessed valuation. The land was bought in 1835, 
when a wilderness, and depended on titles dating 
back to 1777. He had bought the land, known as 
the Houmas tract, in partnership with others. All 
had acted in good faith, their claim being fortified 
by a court decision of the Louisiana Supreme 
Court in the case of Slidell v. Righter, (3 Annual 
Reports, p. 199) delivered February, 1848. Sli- 
dell here quoted the opinion of the court, no less 
cheerfully, perhaps, because it included a personal 
compliment to himself as “an attorney-at-law of 
high standing in his profession.’’® 
The original grant of Houmas Indian lands 
was, however, somewhat vague. Uncertainty was 
increased, moreover, by additional grants, vaguely 
pee Thus Slidell and his associates acquired 
land whose surveys were unquestionably open to 
\dispute. Difficulties arose when: settlers poured 
iin. Efforts to secure from Congress a definition 
of the claims offered leverage to the enemies of 
Slidell to raise the cry of fraud, in which they 
were joined by disappointed settlers. The whole 
situation presented to Slidell, and to his friend 


° Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2433. May 
29, 1860. 


THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE 167 


Judah P. Benjamin, who heartily supported him 
in the Houmas claims, many causes of annoyance. 
In the uncertainty of boundaries there was room 
for real disagreement. But there is nothing in 
the private career of Slidell to warrant history in 
paying heed to the cries of fraud which his politi- 
cal enemies, in the venom of the period, delighted 
to raise.® 


“Cf. Pierce Butler, Judah P. Benjamin (Philadelphia, 1907), 
pp. 165-170. It must be admitted, however, that in political life, 
he was willing to build and maintain a machine by every means at 
his command. Cf. The Daily True Delta, New Orleans, July 29, 
1859. . . . “Capt. J. K. Duncan was, under the late adminis- 
tration, [Pierce] appointed superintendent engineer of two or three 
public works, among others to superintend the repairs of the United 
States Mint building here, and the construction of a New Marine 
Hospital? While Gen. Pierce was yet in the Presidency and Guth- 
rie was Secretary of the Treasury, endeavors were made by Slidell 
and his associates to obtain an influence for selfish political pur- 
poses over the laborers. employed upon the works, which Capt. 
Duncan superintended, through that officer, under whom there 
were, perhaps, some 300 men. To these appeals Capt. D. properly 
replied that he was a government o.ficer, unconnected with any 
political party or clique, and interference with the political course 
of the laborers employed under him he neither deemed proper 
in itself nor compatible with his duty to the government which 
employed him. He furthermore refused to accept the services of 
working men recommended by the same parties for political ob- 
jects only, and declared that no man should be put upon the works 
nor discharged from them for political reasons alone. From that 
time Slidell has pursued Capt. Duncan and his clerk, Capt. J. R. 
Smith, a gentleman of fine attainments and the most irreproach- 
able life, with all the vindictiveness and tenacity of the most grov- 
eling and unscrupulous minds . . . [With Guthrie his tactics 
failed. ] 

“Tt was reserved for the present head of the Treasury Depart- 
ment to stoop to the meanness of pandering to Slidell’s demands, 
and not having a pretext for dismissing Capt. Duncan, whose 
duties were always capably and faithfully performed, he abolished 
the office or place which he held. In this connection, it is as well 
to mention that the individual whom Slidell importuned Guthrie 
to supplant Capt. Duncan with, was one who had attempted to 
bribe, with an offer of six thousand dollars, a gentleman engaged 


168 JOHN SLIDELL 


When Congress adjourned in June, 1860, 
another era in Slidell’s life was closed, the busy, 
important life of a senator ina Union not divided. 
Clouds were gathering; a storm was brewing. 
Lincoln had been nominated, and the Democracy 
had broken ranks. A prophet might foresee dis- 
aster, but in the lull before the storm hope still 
lay in the ballot box. Meanwhile, forces were 
shaping which should bring Slidell for a moment, 
at least, into the focus of a world’s attention. 


under Capt. D. on the Marine Hospital Building, to procure him a 
contract. This proceeding of Slidell’s, in this particular case, is 
but a type of all that has been done at Washington since ‘the 
installation of the pet son of the old Keystone State in the Presi- 
dency. . . . Here in Louisiana, Slidellians fill almost every 
office, at least the chief high places 


CHAPTER) VIL: 


SECESSION 


T is probably no exaggeration to say that in 

1856, as boss of the Democratic party, Slidell 
dominated the political situation. He was able to 
impose upon the Democracy and upon the country 
the candidate of his choice. In 1860 this was 
emphatically not the case. Neither in the party 
nor with the country was Slidell a preponderating 
figure. Buchananism was a waning force. But 
the comments ‘of Slidell upon a passing scene, in 
which he was still an influence to be reckoned with, 
gain in the importance of the events alluded to 
what they lose from the subsidiary influence ot 
the observer. 

Immediately upon announcement of Lincoln’s 
nomination, he communicated to General A. G. 
Carter, the president of the state Democratic con- 
vention at Port Hudson, Louisiana, his opinion of 
its significance. 


We have this day received the news of the nomination 
made by the Black Republican Convention at Chicago. I 
had supposed that Mr. Seward would certainly have been 
their candidate for the Presidency, and had the Charles- 
ton Convention resulted in the harmonious adoption of a 


170 JOHN SLIDELL 


sound platform and the nomination of a man pledged to 
carry out its principles, [ would have preferred that a 
direct issue should have been presented to the people of 
the free States by the nomination of Mr. Seward. That 
issue would, in my opinion, have been, shall the Union be 
preserved or destroyed? Mr. Lincoln may be, and prob- 
ably is, as hostile to the institution of slavery as Mr. Sew- 
ard, but his record on that subject, which I have not yet 
had the opportunity to examine, is comparatively obscure 
and incomplete, and his election, especially if the contest 
be complicated by any division in our own ranks, would 
not present as absolute and unmistakable a test of North- 
ern sentiment as that of Mr. Seward.”? 


The division hinted at by Slidell did come to 
pass, and among the fragments of the Democratic 
party Slidell, who was originally and essentially a 
moderate, found himself supporting the most ex- 
treme wing. A life long opponent of the Whigs 
could not feel at home under the Union leadership 
of Bell and Everett. Neither could he accompany 
men of similar convictions to his own when 
allegiance to the injured and hated Douglas was 
implied. Nothing remained but to uphold Breck- 
inridge and Lane, even though in so doing he be- 
came the ally of men whose anti-Union sentiments 
he had previously opposed. Having made his 
choice, he supported the ticket with his accustomed 
energy. His campaigning methods are described 
with much vivacity by The Daily Delta. 

Last evening, quite unexpectedly, the Young Democ- 
racy—the Young Men’s Breckinridge and Lane Club—of 


* Slidell to Gen. A. G. Carter. May 19, 1860. Quoted in The 
Daily Delta, May 24, 1860. 


SECESSION 171 


this city, together with the masses of true Democrats, 
many from Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, that were 
visiting in our midst, appeared in front of the St. Charles 
Hotel, and, led by a large and well arranged band, pro- 
ceeded to serenade the Hon. John Slidell, who is stopping 
pro tem. at the St. Charles Hotel. 

We were no less surprised than the honorable gentleman 
himself, for we little expected, however much deserving, 
such an ovation on the part of the young Democracy. 
After the large crowd had gathered in front of the hotel, 
and the torches were placed in a position to shed a bril- 
liancy over the immense gathering of human beings pres- 
ent, fire-works went up in the joyfulness and enthusiasm 
of the moment, and loud cheers were given for the “Hon. 
John Slidell,” and repeated with enthusiastic cheers. At 
10 o'clock the Hon. Mr. Slidell appeared, accompanied by 
friends, on the balcony of the hotel and was greeted rap- 
turously. He was evidently laboring under physical pros- 
tration from his recent journey hither from Washington 
City, and also from a severe cold—hence his remarks were 
scarcely audible but to those immediately near him. By 
the aid of our pencil and notebook, we succeeded in gain- 
ing the following points of his impromptu address. 


Slidell paid his respects to Douglas as no true 
leader, but a betrayer of his party who meant to 
aid Lincoln and to succeed him four years hence 
as the Black Republican candidate. Bell, while a 
man of honor, was not the man of the hour. “If 
you want skillful pilots at the helm, and brave cap- 
tains on the deck, my friends, choose Breckinridge 
and Lane. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)” He 
reminded his auditors that he was a Union man, 
but a southerner too. Louisiana must have equal 
rights with Massachusetts, or equality in the Union 


172 JOHN SLIDELL 


existed no longer. As one who had always voted 
a straight Democratic ticket, he maintained con- 
sistency by voting for its “truly accredited stand- 
ard bearers.”” So far as Louisiana was concerned, 
the Douglas ticket was run only for effect, the real 
contest lying between Breckinridge and Bell. 
(Loud cries of “go and take $100,000, and you 
can buy out the Douglas party down the street.” ) 

The speaker ventured to predict that Douglas 
would fail to secure the electoral vote of a single 
state, that Bell could not carry any free state, but 
might by fusion obtain some Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey votes, and that unless Lincoln should 
control the electoral college, Congress would have 
to choose between Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell. 
The whole South, except perhaps Missouri and 
Kentucky, would go for Breckinridge. But the 
real issue depended upon Pennsylvania, where the 
party had a good chance unless circumvented by 
Forney and the immediate friends of Douglas. 

Slidell then paid his compliments to his hearers, 
hoped soon to meet them individually in their 
clubs, and declared that he rejoiced at “much that 
is nobly promising in your progress so manly, so 
Southern; may you have God speed in your 
work.” 

It is easy to perceive in the occasion and in the 
speech itself, incomplete as were its reporter’s 
notes, the secret of Slidell’s influence. There was 
in him a strange blending of the polished gentle- 


SECESSION 173 


man and cultivated man of the world with the 
mob-moving demagogue. Charm he unquestion- 
ably possessed, or a high spirited crowd of youths 
who had heard scarcely a word he said would not 
have broken up in the mood which it did, for the 
exuberant reporter goes on to say that 

“The honorable speaker then retired, and a more enthusi- 
astic, cheering and rejoiced assemblage has not been in this 
city for many years. The band played vigorously patri- 
otic airs, the vast assemblage cheered and recheered, and 
though it was evident that Mr. Slidell was inaudible to 
two-thirds of his auditory, still his presence as a public 
servant, who could render an account of his stewardship, 
was fully appreciated by a grateful people. Our report, 
necessarily hurried, does very little justice to the honor- 
able gentleman on the occasion.’”’? 


On the eighteenth and nineteenth of October he 
was slated, with Jefferson Davis ‘“‘and other speak- 
ers of distinction,’ to address a rally at Selma, 
Alabama. “Let there be a grand turnout of the 
unterrified of Alabama’ was the prayer of The 
Daily Delta, which, as cannot have escaped notice, 
looked upon Slidell with a far more favorable eye 
than did its near name-sake, The Daily True 
Delta. 

The efforts of Slidell were successful locally. 
After the recent overwhelming victory over Soule, 
his leadership in Louisiana was beyond dispute. 
The account of the election as forwarded by Slidell 
to Buchanan is of additional interest as the last 


* The Daily Delia, September 18, 1860. 
* The Daily Delta, October 4, 1860. 


174 JOHN SLIDELL 


letter to the President written in the old time vein 
of friendship and good will. For one of the sacri- 
fices which each was soon to make to the cause of 
his adoption was a friendship deeply rooted in 
the years. 


My dear Sir 


We have carried Louisiana over Bell by a plurality of 
about 3000—Very many of the Bell party will act with us 
in our future movements & a majority of the native citi- 
zens who voted for Douglas; but here in the city, seven 
eighths at least of the votes for Douglas were cast by the 
Irish & Germans, who are at heart abolitionists. They 
can easily be taken care of. Louisiana will act with her 
sister States of the South. I deeply regret the embarrass- 
ments which will surround you during the remainder of 
your term, and I need scarcely say that I will do everything 
in my power to modify them as much as possible & to 
avert any hostile action during your administration. 

I see no probability of preserving the Union, nor indeed 
do I consider it desirable to do so if we could. My only 
regret will be the separation from the small but gallant 
band of democrats who have stood by us so manfully in 
the final contest. 

Our Governor will probably convene the Legislature at 
an early day, when a Convention will be called to appoint 
delegates to confer with the other Slave States—It may 
be necessary for me to remain here until January, but if 
you think my presence in Washington desirable, I will 
endeavour to leave here towards the close of this month— 
There is a vacant Judgeship in New Mexico. if there be 
no urgent necessity to fill it at once, I would be gratified 
that the appointment be not made at present. 

Very faithfully & respy 
Your friend &c 
John Slidell 
New Orleans, 
11 Novr ’60. 
To the President. 


SECESSION 175 


Once more, and for the last time, in Congress, | 
Slidell was frankly the ambassador from Louisi- 
ana, the advance agent of Secession. As such it| 
was no part of his plan to antagonize the states 
of the upper Mississippi valley. If possible, the 
old alliance of South and West must be per- 
petuated. Slidell undertook to pledge “to every 
citizen of the country whose streams flow into the 
Mississippi the free navigation of the river and 
the free interchange of all of the agricultural 
products of the valley of the Mississippi.’’* 

In this new role, it was inevitable that, if the 
President evinced the slightest hint of nationalism, 
Slidell should find himself in opposition to his 
old friend. The press, anticipating such an 
outcome, announced it in advance. On December 
eighteenth the following telegram reached the As- 
sociated Press. “Senator Slidell, of Louisiana, 
charged President Buchanan with imbecility, im- 
puting to him the cause of the present troubles and 
the authorship of the present crisis.” To this, 
Slidell replied on the floor of the senate that there 
was no shadow of foundation for the dispatch, 
that he had never spoken in the senate upon the 
President’s message, the resolutions of the Sena- 
tor from Kentucky, nor, even in a remote way, 
upon any of the difficulties which were agitating 
the country. What was more, he had expressed 


* Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 137. De- 
cember 19, 1860. 


176 JOHN SLIDELL 


no such sentiments to anyone outside the senate, 
either by speech or in writing, as were alleged in 
the telegram. Though this was not the opportune 
moment for its expression, his admiration for the 
President was very high.® A little later he paid 
his compliments to the press in a way to leave 
little doubt of his sentiments. “Tf it be well un- 
derstood that the mendacity of the reporters of 
the associated press is so notorious, so patent 
throughout the country, that every Senator on this 
floor admits it, I have obtained everything that I 
wish.’”® 

| So far as the official records indicate, the in- 
evitable breach occurred when Buchanan shook 
off his fatal lethargy sufficiently to dismiss from 
the war portfolio John B. Floyd, the most disloyal 
of his advisers. It was Slidell himself who offered 
a resolution requesting from the President the 
reasons for his action together with an explana- 
tion as to why the new appointment had not been 
communicated to the senate.’ On the following 
,day, he supported his position by elaborate argu- 
iments on the necessity of senatorial confirmation 
lot appointments.® 


° Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 131. De- 
cember 19, 1860. 


* Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 250. Jan- 
uary 5, 1861. 


* Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 283. Jan- 
uary 9, 1861. 


* Ibid., p. 304. January 10, 1861. 


SECESSION 177 


Though the President made the desired report, 
it was not to be anticipated that Slidell would con- 
cur in its reasoning. On the twenty-third he fol- 
lowed the original resolution with two others: one 
that the reasons advanced by the President for 
delay in submitting the nomination as well as for 
making the nomination that he did were not satis- 
factory; the other, that the President in making a 
six months appointment of an acting secretary of 
war, without consulting the senate, in session at the 
time, both exceeded his constitutional authority 
and violated the Act of 1795 to which he himself 
referred in his defence. Action of this sort, said 
Slidell, “if suffered to pass by without express 
dissent, would establish a precedent alike danger- 
ous to the principles on which our system of Gov- 
ernment was established, and in derogation of 
the constitutional rights and privileges of the 
Senatew. 

In harmony with Slidell’s evident intention to 
cripple the war department by upholding Floyd, 
was his similar protest against the removal of the 
commandant of West Point. On this score he 
wrote Buchanan a formal note demanding to know 
whether the removal met with the President’s ap- 
proval.*® Buchanan replied, with equal formality, 
that he upheld the secretary of war in all things 


° Tbid., p. 517. January 23, 1861. 


* George Ticknor Curtis, Life of James Buchanan, II, 445. Sli- 
dell to Buchanan, Washington, January 27, 1861. 


178 JOHN SLIDELL 


and that the latter’s official acts were his own.”* 
| One week later Slidell bade farewell to the senate. 
If he felt any emotion at leaving the goal of his 
ambitions and a scene where he had played a 
considerable part, it was not apparent in a speech 
which was singularly devoid of sentiment, cold 
and almost menacing, but clear-cut and well rea- 
soned, even to the premise that southern pri- 
vateers would destroy our commerce, but mistaken 
in its prediction that foreign nations would in- 
evitably intervene. The issue of war, and Slidell 
was sufficient of a realist to believe that war was 
by no means impossible, lay with the free states. 
Choose whichever course they preferred, the 
South would meet them on their own ground.” 
From his first setting foot in New Orleans, 
Slidell had so completely identified himself with 
Louisiana that there could be no question of his 
action when secession was determined upon. In 
view, however, of his presence in the senate when 
that action was taken, and in view also of the 
Union preferences which he had from time to time 
recorded, natural enough in a man of his back- 
ground and associations, most of all, perhaps, in 
view of his identification so intimately with a 
»President of all the states united,—for it will be 
| remembered that one of his reasons for champion- 


" Tbid., II. 445. January 29, 1861. 


” Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 720. Feb- 
ruary 5, 1861. 





SECESSION 179 


\ing Buchanan was the desire to elect a moderate} 
who should conciliate antagonistic interests,—in 
view of all these circumstances , it would scarcely 
seem that Slidell can be regarded as a fire-eater or 
in any sense as a rabid secessionist. In 1850, cer- 
tainly, his section was decidedly in advance of him 
in that respect. In 1853 he believed that mention 
of him as timber for Pierce’s cabinet was due to 
confidence in him as the chief Union man south of 
Virginia. There can be no doubt of his desire to 
make the Buchanan administration a success, and 
that success would necessarily be measured by its 
ability to hold together the Union. All the out- 
standing features of his career, therefore, point 
to Slidell as a follower rather than a leader vn 
secession. Moreover, and this is worth consider- ; 
ing, when the South made its decision, Slidell was 
sixty-eight years old, at a season in life when one 
is inclined to weigh a step so momentous. Age 
and riches alike counseled conservatism.** It was 
not, therefore, until after the nomination and elec- 
tion of Lincoln that Slidell’s expressions took on 
a menacing character. And even when circum- 
stances brought him to the parting of the ways 
with Buchanan, it is pleasant to reflect that their 
ancient friendship, to the last a genuine personal 


* The Daily Delta, New Orleans, August 7, 1862, quotes a re- 
port from the Treasurer’s Department to the effect that Slidell’s 
taxes for 1861 in New Orleans, unpaid because of war conditions, 
amounted to $3,178.50. He was one of the heaviest tax-payers in 
New Orleans. 


— 


—_* 


180 JOHN SLIDELL 


affection, far deeper than a mere political alliance, 
ended without bitterness or recrimination. 

As one of the foremost men in the newly con- 
stituted Confederacy, Slidell was certain to find 
his talents in requisition. Here his past pointed 
toward his future. The Mexican mission, the 
Central American offer, the bond negotiations in 
London, the political maneuvers which had baffled 
Soulé, his choice by Buchanan for the French mis- 
sion—all combined to suggest him to Jefferson 
Davis as a diplomatist of the Confederacy. A 
much abler man than James M. Mason, he might 
reasonably have been selected for the London 
post, but Paris, too, was of utmost importance, 
and Slidell’s aptitudes were, perhaps, more calcu- 
lated to please Napoleon than Lord John Russell. 
At any rate, it is as much a tribute to the sagacity 
of Jefferson Davis and his advisers as to the 
ability and enterprise of Slidell that he was 
selected to be the successor of Benjamin Franklin 
at a court which once before had smiled upon 
Americans in revolution.™* 

Slidell’s journey to the post assigned to him was 
featured by an incident of tremendous moment in 
the diplomatic history of the United States. But 


“Sumner took vigorous exception to the characterization of 
Slidell as a second Franklin. See an article in the Atlantic Monthly 
for November, 1863, reprinted in Works, X. 256-258. “The pres- 
ent struggle is characteristically represented by John Slidell, 
whose great fame is from electioneering frauds to control a Presi- 
dential election; so that his character is fitly drawn, when it is 
said that he thrust fraudulent votes into the ballot- box, and whips 
into the hands of taskmasters.” 


SECESSION 181 


the Trent Affair, which looms so large in the story 
of the Civil War, was of less importance to the 
captives than it was to the captors. Indeed, the 
whole affair tended both to advertise and to 
simplify the mission. 

Its outline was simple. Slidell, his wife and 
four children, his secretary, Eustis, with his wife, 
and Mason, with his secretary, MacFarland, made 
their way to Charleston, where it was hinted, in 
order to mislead any Federals lying off the port, 
that they would depart on the Nashville. This 
ship did put out to sea on the tenth of October, 
but without any passengers of distinction. They 
left, instead, on the night of the twelfth on the 
small blockade runner, Theodora, and received 
two days later a friendly welcome at the British 
port of New Providence, Nassau. Finding that 
British ships sailing from here touched at New 
York, the commissioners pushed on in the Theo- 
dora to Cardenas, Cuba, whence they proceeded 
overland to Havana, there to await a British 
steamer bound for a less hazardous port. While 
in Havana they were treated with marked civility 
by the British consul, and introduced by him to 
the Governor, who, however, declined to recog- 
nize them officially, receiving them only as travel- 
lers of personal distinction. Their passage pe 
duly engaged for the British mail steamer Trent. 
But, before they embarked, Captain Wilkes of the j 
United States sloop, San Jacinto, had learned of 


182 JOHN SLIDELL 


their presence in Havana and of their intentions. 
Without any communication or authorization 
from the navy department and over the protests 
of his own Lieutenant Fairfax, but fortified by 
what he believed were precedents recited in certain 
books on maritime law, which he carried in the 
cabin, he determined to lie in wait for the Trent 
and to seize the commissioners and their dis- 
patches. This he did on the eighth of November, 
halting the Trent by means of a shell fired across 
her bow. The dispatches he altogether failed to se- 
cure, but the agents were taken after a pro forma 
show of force. The Tvent, with the ladies of the 
party, proceeded on its way, and the commis- 
sioners and their secretaries were conveyed forth- 
with to Boston and imprisoned at Fort Warren.*® 

The excitement which prevailed in both the 
United States and England when news spread of 
Captain Wilkes’s exploit and the near approach 
to war which the wise pressure of the Prince Con- 
sort and the timely action of Seward and Sumner 
averted are part of the history of the times. 
There is still room for question, however, in ac- 
cordance with one’s preference for the Adams” 


* The Daily True Delta, December 7, 1861, unfriendly even in 
this crisis, quotes with glee the New York Times, November 25, 
“Arrival at Boston of Commodore Wilkes, with Slidell and Mason. 

After him came Slidell, with a somewhat less timid air, 
but still his knees every now and then betraying by their shaky 
motions the trepidation which their owner strove to conceal.” 


Charles Francis Adams, “The Trent Affair. An Historical 


Retrospect,” see Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 
XLV. 35-76. 


SECESSION 183 


or the Dana™ interpretation, as to which country, 
America or Great Britain, gave the other greater 
provocation in these exasperating days. But there 
is no doubt whatever as to the folly of forcing 
upon worldly and even cynical men like these en- 
voys of revolution the unexpected but welcome 
role of martyrs. 

At Fort Warren the prisoners passed their time,| 
in some degree of physical discomfort, it is true, 
but with the cheerful certainty that every day of 
their captivity increased the probability of war 
with Great Britain, and in consequence the com- 
plete success of their cause. Even their physical 
wants, in spite of the madness which seized all 
classes in Massachusetts from Governor Andrew 
down, were ministered to by Good Samaritans, 
who had known them socially in happier days. 
Prominent among these were William Appleton’® 
and Robert C. Winthrop,’® who incurred con- 
siderable odium among fanatics by gifts of wine, 
fruits, and other delicacies. The hardships of de- 
tention and the contemplation of a hoped-for war 
were alike ended when, on January 1, 1862, the} 
captives were removed secretly to Bre mneciani) 
in order to avoid the clamors of a Boston mob, 
and from thence permitted to embark on the 


"Richard Henry Dana, “The Trent Affair. An Aftermath.” 
Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, March, 1912. 

% Samuel Abbott Green, “James Murray Mason and John Slidell 
in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor,’ Proceedings of the Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society, December, 1911, p. 11. 

*” Charles Francis Adams, op. cit., p. 27. Boston, 1912, 


184 JOHN SLIDELL 


British sloop of war Finaldo®® and from it to be 
transferred to an ocean liner. The journey, so 
dramatically interrupted, was soon completed, and 
the commissioners entered upon their residence 
abroad.*? 

The significance attached by the North to the 
mission and the bitterness felt at surrendering the 
commissioners find pungent expression in the 
words of Charles Sumner, which, in their very 


_ severity, constitute a tribute to the importance of 


‘ their subject. Of the commissioners he declared: 


These two old men were citizens of the United States, 
and for many years Senators. Arrogant, audacious, per- 
sistent, perfidious,—one was author of the Fugitive Slave 


” The Daily True Delta, New Orleans, January 14, 1862. 

“The release of Messrs. Mason and Slidell—Their Departure 
for Europe—The Boston Journal of the 2d gives the following 
account of the departure of the Southern Commissioners and their 
secretaries ato 

“Mr. Slidell was somewhat sulky, and not at all pleased at going 
in such an unostentatious manner, and in such a vessel. He evi- 
dently expected that a steamer would come here especially for 
them. Part of his ill-nature may be owing to his health, which 
has not been good for some weeks, keeping him pretty close to his 
room, although he has not called for medical aid.” . . . 

The Daily True Delta, New Orleans, May 7, 1862, in an edi- 
torial pursued him with vindictiveness into exile. “The infamous 
Buchanan and his Slidell gang, and the hideous Know-Nothing 
treason, joined hands against us; but we survived the conspiracy, 
as we hope to do the machinations of all similar combinations and 
unholy leagues. To the filthy dregs of these consumptive com- 
binations we would give the assurance of our most distinguished 
consideration, together with the expression of our confident belief 
that, if our lives be spared, no matter how present troubles may 
result, we shall in the future, as we have in the past, break many 
a lance in the cause of civil and religious liberty and democratic 
republican government.” .. . 

* The standard account of The Trent Affair, though published in 
1896, is still Thomas L. Harris, The Trent Affair (Indianapolis, 
1896). 


SECESSION 185 


Bill, and the other was chief author of the filibustering 
system which has disgraced our national name and dis- 
turbed our national peace. Occupying places of trust and 
power in the service of the country, they conspired against 
it, and at last the secret traitors and conspirators became 
open rebels. The present Rebellion, surpassing in pro- 
portions and in wickedness any rebellion in history, was — 
from the beginning quickened and promoted by their un- 
tiring energies. That country to which they owed love, 
honor, and obedience, they betrayed and gave over to vio- 
lence and outrage. Treason, conspiracy, and rebellion, 
each in succession, acted through them. The incalculable 
expenditures now tasking the national resources,—the 
untold derangement of affairs, not only at home, but 
abroad,—the levy of armies without example,—the de- 
vastation of extended spaces of territory,—the plunder of 
peaceful ships on the ocean, and the slaughter of fellow- 
citizens on the murderous battle-field,—such are some of 
the consequences proceeding directly from them.?? 


If, in truth, consequences like these already 
flowed from the conduct of Mason and Slidell, it 
is certain that their effect was not diminished by 
the mission overseas. 


2 Charles Sumner, Complete Works, VIII. 32-33. 


CHAPTER Vit 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 


HE years which Slidell passed as Confederate 
commissioner at the court of Napoleon III 
were more conducive to fame than to contentment. 

\ Talents of a high order were requisite for success, 
and these Slidell possessed and exerted. But suc- 
| cess in negotiation was predetermined by success 
on the battlefield. It was impossible that the diplo- 
mat succeed where his country failed. As in 
Mexico, where Slidell had won his spurs in di- 
plomacy, the difficulties were insurmountable. If 
greatness depended wholly upon good fortune, 
Slidell’s claim to recognition would be limited to 
his various achievements in moulding Louisiana 
to his will, and in nominating his friend Buchanan 
to the Presidency. But greatness is also measured 
by the amount and intelligence of effort put forth, 
as well as by results achieved, and by such a test 
the vexations of an impossible mission reveal the 
, incumbent at his best. Certainly Slidell recog- 
nized at Paris the opportunity of a life time to 
‘serve the South, his country, and to win laurels 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 187 


for himself. The alternating hopes and disap- 
pointments of this crowning period of Slidell’s 
career can be followed, fortunately, in his own let- 
ters to James M. Mason, his confrére at London, 
who of all men was best qualified to sympathize 
with him. 

In the first letter of the series, written from 
Paris on February 5, 1862, Slidell admits to 
Mason that “recognition [of the Confederacy] 
may long be delayed but I am very sanguine as to 
the speedy breaking up of the blockade.”* He 
counted much on the friendly disposition of the 
French authorities and was proportionately dis- 
appointed at the coldness of his first reception by! 
M. Thouvenel, the minister of foreign affairs. 
Thouvenel denied that his government had been 
in correspondence with Great Britain concerning 
the blockade, and “his denial . . . was so cate- 
gorical and unqualified” says Slidell, “that I was 
obliged to believe it, but conversations with other 
officials have since led me to doubt it.”” The min-\ 
ister of the interior, Persigny, a close friend al 
the Emperor, was more cordial than Thouvenel,’ 
and Slidell set store upon his good offices and those 
of the president of the council of state, M. 
Baroche,* whose son had previously been placed 


* February 5, 1862. Except where otherwise indicated the refer- 
ences in this chapter are to the Mason papers in the Library of 
Congress. 

* February 12, 1862. 

* Ibid. 

* Tbid. 


188 JOHN SLIDELL 


under obligations to the Slidells for hospitality 
; extended during a visit to New Orleans.° The 
minister of finance, M. Fould,® was also among 
those who gave Slidell an early audience. His 
conclusion from conversations with these men and 
others was that “the Emperor’s sympathies are 
with us—that he would immediately raise the 
blockade and very soon recognize us, if England 
would only make the first step, however small, in 
that direction, but for the present at least he is 
decided that she shall take the initiative.”’ Sli- 
dell’s French friends told him that they had no 
wish to be the cat in the fable and to draw out 
chestnuts for British benefit. 

Slidell had a faculty for facing facts, and his 
first estimate of Napoleon’s intentions proved to 
be final. Napoleon’s friendly advances were al- 
ways forestalled of fruition by British reluctance 
to cooperate and, ultimately, by Confederate re- 

erses, which intensified the risks of interference 
by outsiders. The first of these disappointments 
came to Slidell in March, 1862. Notwithstanding 
the autocracy of the Emperor, the Corps Légis- 
latif was in some measure a barometer of opinion, 
at least to the extent that many of the speakers 
drew their inspiration from the imperial fountain, 
and Slidell watched its debates upon the American 
blockade with a passionate interest. In a speech 

° See letter of February 5, 1862. 


° February 12, 1862. 
"February 12, 1862. ~ 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 189 


delivered March 13, 1862, by M. Billault, a gov- 
ernment spokesman in the Chamber, he heard the 
knell of French intervention. “If instead of the 
defeats at Roanoke and Donelson, we could have 
had some decisive victory to announce to the 
world, I believe that a very different view would 
have been’ taken by Mr. Billault. As it is, I can 
only look forward with hope not unmingled with 
anxiety, to the news which we must soon have of 
an important battle at or near Nashville.’ 

The entire month was a period of the most 


anxious suspense. It confirmed Slidell’s vita 


1 


t 


sion that Napoleon would do nothing without 
England, being “determined to hold on to her 
alliance on any terms which she might dictate.’”® 
He asked Mason for a frank statement of the 
London situation, for if nothing was to be hoped 
from Palmerston and Russell, ‘the sooner our 
people know that we have nothing to expect from 
this side of the water and that we must rely ex- 
clusively on our own resources, the better.”?° 
Before another two weeks, renewed negotiations 
between Napoleon and England lifted Slidell out 
of the slough of despond, and he wrote Mason in 
a totally different vein: 

I have at last some good news to give you. Mr. Lind- 


say has had a long interview with the Emperor, who is 
prepared to act at once decidedly in our favor. he has 


®* March 14, 1862. 


° March 28, 1862. 
* Tbid. 


190 JOHN SLIDELL 


always been ready to do so and has twice made repre- 
sentations to England, but has received evasive responses. 
He has now for the third time given them but in a more 
decided tone. Mr. Lindsay will give you all the particu- 
lars. This is entirely confidential, but you can say to 
Lord Campbell, Mr. Gregory etc. that I now have positive 
and authentic evidence that France only waits the assent 
of England for recognition and other more cogent 
measures.!1 
, But these approaches of Napoleon were unof- 
\ficial. With characteristic subterfuge, he acted 
through the Englishman, Lindsay, rather than 
through his own ambassador at London. Russell 
refused to negotiate outside of regular channels, 
and Napoleon’s third move shared the fate of his 
former efforts. Lindsay told his story to Disraeli, 
however, and from him gained what promised to 
be a new light on the situation. Disraeli declared 
‘that Lord John Russell was bound by a secret 
,agreement with Mr. Seward not to break the 
blockade and not to recognize the Confederacy. 
But Disraeli hinted that this agreement was irk- 
some to Russell and that, if Napoleon himself 
would only take the lead, British opinion would 
support him so strongly that Russell would be 
obliged, with only pretended reluctance, to give 
way in order to avoid a change of ministry.” 
Napoleon was not too well pleased with Lind- 
say’s report of the reception of his overtures.** 


* April 12, 1862. 

“Summary of despatch No. 6, J. Slidell to Hon. J. P. Benjamin, 
secretary of state, April 18, 1862. 

* Thid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 191 


He recollected his former grievance at Lord John 
Russell’s conduct in forwarding copies of French 
official representations on American affairs to 
Lord Lyons, who in turn communicated them to 
Mr. Seward. But he seized upon the explanation 
of the Russell-Seward agreement, and was half 
inclined to act upon Disraeli’s advice, on the prin- 
ciple that “he could not consent that his people 
should continue to suffer from the action of the 
Federal government.”** A friendly appeal might 
suffice, especially if accompanied by a naval dem- 
onstration on the American coast. But action 
would better await the naval decision at New Or- 
leans, whose capture Napoleon did not anticipate, 
but must take into possible account. All this in 
confidence. 

Characteristically Machiavellian was the scheme 
which Napoleon at this time evolved to make his 
future course toward the American question ap- 
pear like a response to public demand. ‘Measures 
have been taken,” says Slidell in his report to the 
department of state at Richmond, “to procure 
petitions from the chambers of commerce of the 
principal cities, asking the intervention of the 
Emperor to restore commercial relations with the 
Southern States.”?® Editorial comment in the 
semi-official journals, Constitution, Patrie, and 


™“ Summary of despatch No. 6, J. Slidell to Hon. J. P. Benjamin, 
secretary of state, April 18, 1862. 


* [bid. 


192 JOHN SLIDELL 


Pays"® coincided with reports that, with the excep- 
tion of M. Thouvenel, the entire cabinet favored 
a vigorous American policy. Even more reas- 
suring was a burst of activity in the Mediter- 
ranean fleet, which was ordered to lay in stores 
for three months. All in all, in the closing days 
of April, 1862, Slidell had reason for contentment. 
“T am not without hope,” he wrote Mason, “that 
the Emperor may act alone.” 

,; Even the fall of New Orleans failed to dispel 
| the illusion of cheer. On May 2 Persigny gave 
Slidell definite assurance that the ‘Confederacy 
would soon be recognized,” “this between our- 
selves—as he talks to me very unreservedly and 
relies on my discretion.”’** Even Thouvenel re- 
laxed under the new geniality and confided to 
Slidell that Mercier, who had gone on Napoleon’s 
behalf to investigate conditions in the Confed- 
eracy, had made a favorable report as to southern 
resources and determination. To Thouvenel’s 
query as to the significance of the loss of New 
Orleans, Slidell was obliged to own that “it would 
be most disastrous, as it would give the enemy the 
control of the Mississippi and all its tributaries, 
but that it would not in any way modify the fixed 
purpose of our people to carry on the war even to 
our own extermination.”?® Slidell, on his side, 


* April 28, 1862. 
™ Tbid. 

* May 3, 1862. 
* May 14, 1862. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 193 


pressed an inquiry into Thouvenel’s views as to)! 
Lord Palmerston’s assertion that British and 
French policies were identical. Thouvenel evaded: 
the answer by saying that French action had been 
purely verbal.?° The interview was, on the whole, 
satisfactory to Slidell, though a warning that only 
great Confederate victories at Corinth or in Vir- 
ginia would warrant European recognition should 
have impressed him as ominous. 

On the sixteenth of May Slidell received fresh 
intimations of the Emperor’s good intentions— 
these from M. Billault, whose March speech had 
caused him such anxiety. “He assures me,” 
writes Slidell, ‘that the Emperor and all the minis- 
ters are favorable to our cause, have been so for 
the last year and are now quite as warmly so as 
they have been. Mr. Thouvenel is of course ex- 
cepted, but even he has no hostility.”? The 
darker side of the picture was that Billault, in 
contradiction to Thouvenel, declared that the Em- 
peror was far from satisfied with Mercier’s visit 
to Richmond.” 

Meanwhile, McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign 
was in full progress, and Slidell looked for the 
capture of Richmond. “Things look gloomy,” he 
admitted to Mason, “but if we can repulse the 
enemy before Richmond and hold it (of which I 


* Ibid. A part of this letter is printed in Richardson, Messages 
and Papers of the Confederacy, Il. 251. 


* May 16, 1862. 
* Tbid. 


194 JOHN SLIDELL 


feel by no means confident) and Beauregard de- 
feat Halleck, I think that we will have a good 
prospect of early recognition. Even if we aban- 
don Richmond retiring in good order beyond 
James River and we achieve a decided victory in 
the neighbourhood of Corinth, I shall entertain 
hopes of being recognised.’** He suggested to 
Mason that it would be well for both, in the event 
of a military success in either quarter, to act in 
concert in a demand for immediate recognition. 

But such a plan involved a number of objec- 
tions. The governments of Great Britain and 
France were not equally friendly to the Southern 
cause. Joint action might be premature. On the 
other hand, too early a demand upon Paris might 
isolate London completely. The difficulties a 
battling confederation would have in forcing 
recognition from unwilling powers were really in- 
superable, and Slidell fell back into the pessimism 
from which the promises of Napoleon had tempo- 
rarily lifted him. “I am heartily tired and dis- 
gusted,” he complains, “with my position here and 
so far as I am personally concerned, if our recog- 
nition is to be indefinitely postponed, I would very 
much prefer to bring my mission to an immediate 
close, but of course I must remain at my post 
however disagreeable, until authorised by the 
President to withdraw.’’** In these views of Sli- 


* May 27, 1862. 
“June 1, 1862. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 195 


dell upon the desirability of action or a prompt 
withdrawal from Europe, Mason concurred.” 
But new issues arose to make a permanent resi- 
dence desirable, even in default of recognition. 
One of these was Mexico. Slidell’s first reference 
to Mexican developments was in an outline to 
Mason of a projected letter to Thouvenel. “I am 
inclined . . . to touch upon the Mexican ques- 
tion, saying that while foreign occupation of that 
country would excite the most violent opposition 
at the North, we, far from sharing such a feeling, 
would be pleased to see a steady, respectable, re- 
sponsible government established there soon.’’”® 
Distance did not blind Slidell to the vast signifi- 
cance of the military decisions pending East and 
West, and in the middle of June he again sounded 
Mason on the proper course for each to pursue 
when the victory should be heralded. To Slidell, 
London looked like the most promising field for an 
aggressive demand.** He regarded Russell as the 
chief obstacle in the Confederate path, but felt 
that a formal demand, backed by a victorious 
army, might induce even him to yield to the policy 
of Palmerston and the other members of the cabi- 
net. If, however, Great Britain showed a disposi- 
tion to mediate between North and South, “‘it 
would perhaps be better to postpone the demand 
*° See Slidell, June 6, 1862. 


*° June 6, 1862. 
June 14, 1862. 


196 JOHN SLIDELL 


for formal recognition as such an offer would be 
virtually to recognize us.’’”* 

To Billault Slidell expressed himself as favor- 
ing recognition far rather than mediation,” saying 
“that it was impossible to overestimate the impor- 
tance of such a step, that if it had been taken last 
summer the war would long since have termi- 
nated. That the same effect would now follow in 
a few months, it would give courage to the peace 
party at the North to speak out in time to operate 
upon the approaching Congressional elections.’’*° 
Billault, however, gave Slidell no encouragement 
to think that recognition would soon be forthcom- 
ing and reiterated that the French determination 
to act only in concurrence with England was un- 
‘changed. He recommended him to consult Thou- 
venel once more®’ and admitted that the Con- 
federate attitude toward French intervention in 
Mexico might have an influence upon the question 
of recognition, the more so as Slidell took occasion 
to renew his assurances “‘that all we desired there 
was the establishment of a respectable and re- 
sponsible government and were quite indifferent 
as to its form, and that he was well aware that 
such were not the sentiments of the Washington 
government.’’*” 

* June 14, 1862. 

* June 17, 1862. 

Ibid. 


* bid. 
° [bid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 197 


Hope deferred was making the heart sick, and 
on June 21 Slidell unburdened himself in a very 
correct analysis of events. He put no confidence 
in Lord Palmerston. Disraeli and Walpole were 
well intentioned but futile. There was no use in 
applying to Thouvenel. 

I have seen enough since I have been here to be con- 
vinced that nothing that I can say or do will advance for 
a single day the action of this government, and I am very 
much inclined to tender my resignation: The position of 
our representatives in Europe is painful and almost humil- 
iating. it might be tolerated if they could be consoled by 
the reflection that their presence was in any way advan- 
tageous to their cause, but I am rather disposed to believe 


that we would have done better to withdraw after our 
first interviews with Russell and Thouvenel.33 


More patiently, but no more optimistically, he 
wrote a few days later, “I think that it is now 
more evident than ever that England will do noth- 
ing that may offend the Lincoln government, and 
I shall await, as patiently as I can, the course of 
events.”°* Five months of his mission had ex- 
pired, and Slidell had made little progress. In the 
social world, he was obtaining a recognition that 
was soon to result in an acquaintance and even a 
friendship with the Emperor. In the political, he; 
was pitted against forces too mighty for even the| » 
most adroit of diplomats to overcome. These 
forces, nevertheless, seemed for the moment to 
favor Slidell when McClellan’s withdrawal from 


% June 21, 1862. 
* June 29, 1862. 


198 JOHN SLIDELL 


eases admitted the failure of the Peninsular 
Campaign. He wrote to Mason to reassure him of 
Napoleon’s good-will. “TI hear that the attempt is 
renewed to excite the impression in England that 
the Emperor is not disposed to recognise us and 
that the hitch is here, not at London. You can 
run no risk in giving any such report a most em- 
phatic contradiction.”** Persigny gave him once 
more to understand that intervention was immi- 
nent. But he realized the difficulty of Mason’s 
position because of Palmerston’s recent display of 
strength in Parliament. “Indeed that august 
body seems to be as much afraid of him, as the 
urchins of a village school of the birch of their 
pedagogue.’’*® 

| At last, in July, 1862, came an interview with 
‘the Emperor. Slidell had won the confidence of 
the Emperor’s friends. It remained for him to 
bring Napoleon himself into the circle of his in- 
fluence. The improved military position of the 
Confederacy doubtless had its share in bringing 
yabout a meeting. It took place at Vichy.*’ Na- 
|poleon was apparently somewhat noncommittal in 
respect to Slidell’s demand for immediate action, 
but he gave Slidell to understand that his heart 
was in the right place. The interview lasted 
seventy minutes and was marked by extreme 
graciousness on the Emperor’s part. 


* July 11, 1862. 
* Ibid. 
* July 16, 1862. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 199 


He talked freely, frankly and unreservedly, spoke in the 
most decided terms of his sympathy and his regret that 
England had not shared his views. He said that he had 
made a great mistake in respecting a blockade which had 
for six months at least not been effective, that we ought to 
have been recognized last summer while our ports were 
‘ still in our own possession. He spoke freely of the Mexi- 
can question and of the probability of its soon bringing 
him into collision with the U. S. That the treaty with 
Mexico if ratified by the Senate would place them virtu- 
ally in a hostile position towards him. He asked if he 
offered mediation how the question of boundaries could 
be settled What we would insist on? I said that we 
would insist on all the States where a majority of the 
people had already determined by their votes to join our 
Confederacy, leaving the people of Kentucky, Missouri 
and Maryland to decide for themselves whether they 
would or would not unite their fortunes with ours. He 
expressed his regret that he had not been able sooner to 
see me and on parting said that he hoped for the future 
I should have less difficulty in seeing him. 

On the whole he left on my mind the impression that if 
England long persisted in her inaction, he would be dis- 
posed to act without her, although of course he did not 
commit himself to do so. He said that he had reason not 
to be well satisfied with England, she had not appreciated 
as she should have done his support in the Trent affair. 
There is an important part of our conversation that I will 
give you through Mr. Mann. On the whole my interview 
was highly satisfactory. I have as yet made no mention 
of my having seen the Emperor but to his very confi- 
dential friends. I prefer that it should be known through 
other channels and as yet | have seen no notice of it in 
the papers.3§ 


Armed with fresh confidence, after these ex 
pressions of imperial favor, Slidell soon sought a 
* July 20, 1862. 


200 JOHN SLIDELL 


fresh interview with Thouvenel, who had been 
kept in ignorance of the meeting at Vichy. Thou- 
venel discouraged any immediate demand for 
recognition but indicated the right procedure if 
Slidell was determined to act, giving him to under- 
stand that no reply could be expected until some 
time after he himself had returned from Germany, 
where he was going for a ten days’ absence.*® 
| Mason, meanwhile, was pressing similar de- 
jmands upon Lord John Russell, and Slidell felt 
‘the most anxious solicitude as to their reception. 
“Tf the present moment be not opportune (to use 
his favorite phrase,) I can imagine no possible 
contingency short of recognition by Lincoln that 
will satisfy his Lordship.’”*° He wished each 
negotiation, however, to stand upon its own 
merits, and urged Mason to secrecy regarding the 
maneuvers at Paris, which were apparently going 
well, for “I received yesterday a letter from Mr. 
Persigny who had been to Vichy since I saw the 
Emperor. He writes most encouragingly.’’** 
Contact with the Emperor led to overconfidence. 
And Slidell wrote on August 3, when suspense 
over Russell’s decision was growing unbearable, 
“Tt seems to me impossible that Russell can be 
acting in concert with this government, and if he 
has undertaken to solve the question for England 
without full consultation and understanding with 


* July 23, 1862. 
* July 30, 1862. 
“July 30, 1862, 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 201 


France, I should be very much surprised and dis- 
appointed if the Emperor do not take the matter 
in hand on ‘his own hook.’ ”’*” 

Again Lord John Russell refused to sanction | 
these unofficial moves of Napoleon, giving as his 
reason the existence of a strong Union party at 
the South. Slidell’s indignation at this refusal 
matched the seriousness of the decision. He sug- 
gested to Mason that England’s failure to move 
was due to the fact “that they desire to see the 
North entirely exhausted and broken down and 
that they are willing in order to attain that object 
to suffer their own people to starve, and play the 
poltroon in the face of Europe.”** There was still 
room for hope that Russell had acted without con- 
sultation, that Napoleon would resent the rebuff, 
and that action by France alone might be the re- 
sult. If so, ““Russell’s prompt reply ought not to 
be regretted. France will for us be a safer ally 
than England.”** That this would prove to be 
the case seemed undeniable to Persigny, but Sli- 
dell had begun to discount the latter’s over-san- 
guine temperament. ‘He is very enthusiastic,” 
Slidell wrote to Mason, “‘and I am not as confident 
as he appears to be.’’**® Action at this juncture 
was, in Slidell’s judgment in any event, made 
more doubtful by the movements of Garibaldi.*® 

“ August 3, 1862. 

* August 6, 1862. 
“ Ibid. 


* Ibid. 
* August 6, 1862. 


202 JOHN SLIDELL 


} Events in Italy would require the full attention of 

Europe and would militate against Confederate 
hopes. Very curious testimony, this, to the influ- 
ence of one liberal movement in aiding another 
oceans away! 

Concern at the indifference of England, the 
timidity of France, and the tumult of Italy did 
not, however, move Slidell to hold out the olive 
branch to the Federal government. He tells 
Mason of a chance which the Duc de Morny, inti- 
mate of the Emperor, afforded him to talk to 
Seward, through the medium of a Frenchman 
known to be in communication with Washington, 
upon the subject of a peace by reconciliation and 
reconstruction. “You may be assured, in no 
measured terms,” he writes, “of the scorn with 
which such a proposition would be received.”** 

; But, if the bridge was already burned in Amer- 
ica, in France it was desirable to keep open all 
‘avenues of communication. Chief of these was a 
confidential intercourse with the foreign office. 
Thus it was a real service which a friend at the 
foreign office did Slidell in giving him a chance to 
signify his wish for a delayed reply concerning 
his demand upon Thouvenel for recognition of the 
Confederacy. ‘If made it would be merely dila- 
tory, probably more amicable in its tone than 
Russell’s but arriving at the same conclusion.”** 


“ August 20, 1862. 
* Ibid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON I11 203 


Only the actual withdrawal of McClellan from 
the Peninsula would warrant Slidell in pressing 
Thouvenel for an immediate reply. In any event 
such a reply must await the Emperor’s return 
from Chalons or Biarritz.*® This in the event of 
good news. If the news proved bad, an immedi- 
ate withdrawal from Paris might be advisable. 
Meanwhile, the “affairs of Italy are giving great 
uneasiness and with all the Emperor’s desire to 
get rid of his English commitments, he can do 
nothing until Garibaldi is disposed of.’’®° 

Two weeks later affairs were in much the same 
state. Slidell felt that the iron was hot to strike 
and that failure to gain recognition in 1862 would 
leave “no reason to hope for any favorable action 
here until we shall have ceased to desire it.’’** 
But the usual alteration of mood soon came to his 
relief. Lee’s first invasion of Maryland was Sa 
ing high hopes, and Slidell allowed himself some 
roseate dreams of victories to come. McClellan 
was to attack Lee and be defeated. Philadelphia 
was scheduled for capture, and Washington would 
lie at the Confederate mercy. But, in Slidell’s 
opinion, it would be unwise to enter the capital, for 
“if we do we ought to destroy the public buildings 
and that might produce a bad impression in 
MtGoper = 

® August 20, 1862. 

© Tbid. 


September 12, 1862. 
September 26, 1862. 


204 JOHN SLIDELL 


| Contemporary with Lee’s advance came the first 
‘overtures for the Confederate cotton loan. “T 
have been quite surprised,” Slidell declares, “at 
an uninvited suggestion on the part of a respecta- 
ble banking house of a disposition to open a credit 
to our government of a considerable amount. No 
distinct proposition as to the terms or amount, but 
the basis to be cotton to be delivered to the parties 
making the advance at certain ports in the in- 
terior.”°? Slidell felt disposed, in default of spe- 
cific instructions, to assume responsibility for 
carrying through the projected loan on the basis 
of his general powers, subject to concurrence by 
Mason in the terms arranged. “Pray let me hear 
from you at once on the subject as I intend to see 
them again on Monday.”’* The cup of joy was 
pretty full. A much-needed loan was broached, 
and better still (September 30), it seemed once 
more as if recognition would not be long deferred. 
This from Thouvenel, the quondam skeptic. But 
once again a string was tied. Nothing could be 
done before the Emperor’s return.*® 
On October 14, 1862, Slidell was at qui vive. 
,A ministerial council at St. Cloud would decide 
-next day the course of French policy, and recogni- 
tion ought to be officially agreed upon in time for 
;communication to England before the twenty- 
°° September 26, 1862. 


* Ibid. 
* October 2, 1862. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 205 


third.®® On the seventeenth he knew the worst. 
The Roman question had produced a cabinet rup- 
ture. Thouvenel resigned; Drouyn de Lhuys took 
his portfolio; “and for the time our question has 
been lost sight of.”°’ A complete reorganization 
of the cabinet was averted only by the personal 
intervention of the Emperor. All eyes were upon| 
Italy. The Confederacy might wait. 

The political deadlock did not interfere, Hee 
ever, with the negotiations over the cotton loan. 
On October 29 Slidell took Mason more com- 
pletely into his confidence on this head. He 
named the Erlangers as the principals, “pesca 
ing them as “one of the richest and most enter- 
prising banking houses of Europe, having ex- 
tensive business relations throughout Europe and 
free access to some very important men about the 
Court. They will, in anticipation of the acceptance 
of their propositions, actively exert themselves in 
our favor and enlist in the scheme persons who 
will be politically useful.’ Slidell advised ac- 
ceptance of their terms, subject to possible modifi- 
cations, and completed his budget of good news 
with information that Napoleon was exerting 
himself to bring Russia as well as England into a 
proposal for a six months’ armistice, North and} 
South, “with our ports open to all the world,”® | 

© October 14, 1862. 

* October 17, 1862. 


October 29, 1862. 
°° Tbid. 


206 JOHN SLIDELL 


a project the more likely of success because of the 
support of King Leopold, who was believed to 
have much influence with his niece, Queen Vic- 
toria. “The Emperor thinks that his counsels 
will have great influence and perhaps Lord Palm"., 
when he finds the Queen with us, may be willing 
LO act: «°. 

Reverting to the loan, Slidell evidently feared 
that Mason might balk at the terms it contemp- 
lated, for he urged repeatedly that the final de- 
cision would rest not with them, but at Richmond, 
“while in the meanwhile the mere anticipation or 
hope rather of their acceptance will be useful 
here.’”’®* 

In politics, Slidell so far misread the Russian 
temper as to believe that Napoleon’s advances 
i would meet a favorable response, “perhaps with 
some reservation.’®? It was unfortunate, to be 
sure, that Captain Maury, who had been selected 
for St. Petersburg, had not been appointed earlier. 
“We should have had an agent there long since.” 

Slidell’s correspondence for the year 1862 
comes to an end with these reflections upon Rus- 
sia,°* with a belief that France was on the point 
of demanding a cessation of the war in the inter- 
est “of humanity not only in America but in 

” Ibid. 

*% October 1, (Erroneous date for November 1) 1862. 

* November 14, 1862. 


* November 28, 1862. 
* Ibid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 207 


Europe,”® and with a suggestion that army con- 
tractors and armament makers would prove useful 
if properly approached.°® The year had been one 
of immense activity, anxiety, and, in view of a 
cause predoomed to failure, of achievement. 
Many wires had been pulled, many friends re- 
cruited, and much pressure brought to bear to- 
ward recognition, the great object of the mission. 
In a sense, Slidell’s achievements in Paris were 
the counterpart of the military situation at home. ! 
It, too, was foredoomed to failure, but the year 
1862 closed with what appeared to many minds as 
an even chance for victory. 

Appeals for recognition and details of the cot- 
ton loan occupied Slidell in the opening days of 
1863. It was reassuring to be told by Persigny 
that 





Mr. Drouyn de L’Huys wrote to Mr. Mercier last week 
instructing him to make an earnest appeal for a cessation 
of hostilities and to suggest at all events a conference be- 
tween the parties belligerent even without an armistice. 
Mr. Dayton was informed of the instructions and did not 
remonstrate against them. Mr. Drouyn is now heartily 
engaged in the matter and Mr. Persigny is confident that 
if Lincoln refuses to act on the suggestion made by him, 
recognition will immediately follow.§7 


Again the exuberance of Persigny needed to 


be discounted, for Slidell’s next account of the 
instructions to Mercier admits that they were con- 
* October 1, (i. e., November 1) 1862. 


* December 6, 1862. 
* January 21, 1863. 


208 JOHN SLIDELL 


ciliatory to a degree, carefully avoiding “anything 
calculated to excite Yankee susceptibility.”** But 
it was something to have enlisted the active 
cooperation of Drouyn de Lhuys. maw Sorin, 

The affair of the loan came, meanwhile, to a 
head, and on February 3, 1863, Slidell was able 
to announce its consummation, but not the par- 
ticulars. Not so the arrangement for a peace con- 
ference: Slidell learned through his friend at the 
foreign office on February 10 that while Seward 
favored an armistice, Lincoln was ‘‘determined to 
carry on the war at all hazards,’®® and Dayton, 
who had been passive when a conference between 
the belligerents was first proposed, now exerted 
himself in protest against French intervention.” 
But Slidell was hopeful that French policy would 
adhere to its new program and trusted to the 
Emperor’s forthcoming speech to the Chambers to 
“say something significant about our affairs.”™ 
French assistance was then the chief hope, because 
it had soon become apparent that nothing was to 
be anticipated from King Leopold’s influence at 
the British court.” 

By the fifteenth Slidell was in a position to 
announce the terms of the cotton loan. It called 
for £3,000,000 in seven per cent bonds at 77 per 

* January 25, 1863. 

© February 11, 1863. 
” Ibid. 


™ Tbid. 
@ February 11, 1863. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 209 


cent., “convertible into cotton at 6d. delivered 
within six months after peace at a port.””? This 
was highly satisfactory to Erlanger, though it may 
have seemed a hard bargain to the Confederacy. 

In default of recognition, which continued to 
be the rainbow of illusion, Slidell reverted to the 
blockade issue. 

I shall not make it matter of formal communication [he 
wrote Mason], but will endeavour to induce this govern- 
ment to reconsider the whole question of blockade. All 
here admit that a gross error has been committed in recog- 
nising the efficiency of the blockade and only desire to find 
some plausible pretext for retracing the false steps. The 
evidence of the repeated intermissions of the blockade at 
many points and for several days which I presented was 
conclusive, the voluntary relaxation of the blockade of- 
fered in my opinion much stronger grounds for declaring 
it inefficient than its temporary suspension from “force 
majeure.”74 


On this point, nevertheless, as on almost all 
others, Slidell’s hopes were doomed to disappoint- 
ment, for Drouyn de Lhuys informed him that 
France was already too far committed in recogni-{ 
tion of the blockade for her to withdraw withou 
the cooperation of England. ‘He asked me how-' 
ever to write him an informal note on the subject, 
when he would carefully examine it.””° Here, of 
course, was the trouble. Such examination only 
demonstrated the folly of action. Of the blockade 

® February 15, 1863. 


“February 19, 1863. See also March 1, 1863. 
® February 23, 1863. 


210 JOHN SLIDELL 


as well as of the war France continued but a 
passive spectator. 

The only avenue for really constructive de- 
velopments lay in semi-official and private nego- 
tiations with ship contractors. And 1863, in 
France as in England, was a year of activity in 
this direction. The cotton loan made ship-build- 

; ing possible, and Slidell soon turned his attention 
to this auxiliary development of his mission. “We 
can not only build ships here but arm and equip 
them. I am only waiting to know with tolerable 
certainty the success of the loan to suggest to 
Captn. Maury the expediency of coming over 
here, where I have no doubt he can build on as 
good terms as in England, but will have no 
difficulty in carrying his ship to sea.’’?® 

In the more diplomatic sphere of Slidell’s mis- 
sion, one excuse after another arose for French 
delay. In 1862 it was Garibaldi and Italy. In 
41863 the troubles in Poland occupied the stage, 
and Slidell, in a refrain grown almost habitual, 
observes that “Until the Polish imbroglio is set- 
tled I do not hope that anything will be done 
here in our affairs.”"” The world of European 
politics thus complicated a task already diversified 
enough. Recognition, intervention, recall of the 
blockade, ship-building, and the cotton loan made 
in themselves a fairly formidable program for 


 Thid. 
™ March 15, 1863. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 211 


an agent not officially recognized. And already, in 
April, 1863, the problem of Confederate credit 
had arisen. The bonds, now on the market, had 
declined three or four points ;** Spence, the Eng- 
lish agent, feared a drop of fifteen; and stock- 
exchange operations to bolster the bonds were 
already a subject of discussion. Slidell displayed 
on this economic subject, as well as upon the more 
strictly diplomatic questions in his purview, a 


strong acumen. 

I do not see at present [he declares] any sufficient mo- 
tive for buying on acct. of our government, but the time 
may arrive before the settling day when it may be a good 
policy to do so. In the meanwhile, I think it would be well 
to agree that the amount of the loan should be reduced to 
two millions with the privilege however of taking the 
other million within some fixed delay. This would leave 
very little floating scrip for the operators for a fall to 
work on.79 


Along with these sound ideas on conservative 
policy, are revealed some details of the loan which 
betray their writer’s familiarity with high finance. 
He mentions that, if the sales go badly, the Er- 
langers have the option of withdrawing from the 
entire transaction by a payment to the Con- 
federacy of £300,000 but says, “I have no idea 
that under any circumstances they will take this 
ground, for they would be very heavy losers, 


© April 5, 1863. 
" Ibid. 


212 JOHN SLIDELL 


having, as they inform me, expended large sums 
in conciliating certain interests and influences.’’*° 
, Mason’s arrangements for price-bolstering 
were successful for the time being, and on the 
thirteenth Slidell anticipated an early premium of 
five or six per cent." His own affair of the ship- 
building also gave favorable prospect of success, 
involving as it did the following: “B[ulloch] is 
about making contract to be binding only when I 
shall have recd. assurance from the highest source 
that he can use the articles when ready.”*®? 
, Slidell, in turn, made himself useful to Napoleon 
_ by providing him with evidence of Yankee ship- 
;ments of arms to the Mexican government. This, 
he told Mason, he had secured through “the reck- 
lessness or stupidity of Mr. Charles Francis Ad- 
ams.”** The influence of these disclosures was 
not confined to Napoleon, for Slidell noted with 
satisfaction a new truculence in John Bull.8* The 
time was, nevertheless, ill chosen, in Slidell’s opin- 
ion, to press Great Britain for direct permission to 
export arms. He preferred to work through a 
neutral agency, and on April 27 made the fol- 
lowing report to Mason: 


I am now in treaty with the agent of a foreign govern- 
ment for an arrangement that will enable our ships to 


® April 5, 1863. 
* April 13, 1863. 
* Ibid. 


* April 22, 1863. 
* Ibid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 213 


leave England armed and equipped without any danger 
of interruption. Captn. Bullock goes over to-morrow, and 
he will give you full details. I am sure that you will 
consider the proposed arrangement as in every way 
desirable.85 


Quite impossible achievements were anticipated | 
of this new British-Confederate navy. Slidell 
even predicted that if the ships once got to sea, 
“we can open the Mississippi and retake New 
@rleans<7*° 

In May, 1863, interest shifted from blockade- | 
runners and Confederate cruisers back to the loan. 
Spence, the British agent for its flotation, was 
pessimistic, and rumors, which Slidell believed to 
be without foundation, concerning negotiations 
for a second loan were injuring the confidence of 
“the City” in the first loan. On his own responsi- 
bility, Slidell denied that such a loan was in con- 
templation, but he had an uneasy suspicion that 
after all it might be. His anxiety was increased 
by an entire lack of confidence in Spence. “I am 
obliged to confess that I have no faith in Mr. S.’s 
judgment or business qualities, and am almost 
equally sceptical about his fair dealing or disin- 
terestedness.’’®* 

From Spence himself, who claimed to have spe- 
cific authorization from the Confederate treasury 
for the negotiation of this new loan, Slidell de- 

® April 27, 1863. 


May 6, 1863. 
*™ May 8, 1863. 


214 JOHN SLIDELL 


manded to see the instructions.** The reply was 
evasive. Spence spoke of rumor only, mentioned 
Oppenheim and Co. as the probable bankers, indi- 
cated $100,000,000 in six per cent. bonds as the 
proposed sum, recounted his own efforts in the 
Times to bolster confidence in the cotton loan, ad- 
mitted that this would be fatally jeopardized by 
such an issue as they were discussing, and con- 
cluded evasively without any reference to the sup- 
posed instructions, that “it is now better to wrap 
this matter entirely in oblivion for the present,” 
taking especial care to keep it a secret from 
Erlanger and Co., who might, in an effort to 
extricate themselves from the cotton loan, only 
embarrass it further.8° This reply was far from 
satisfactory to Slidell. He not only noted its spirit 
- of evasion, but objected to its assumption of au- 
thority in the expenditure as well as in the flota- 
tion of the loan. To Mason he wrote that “Spence 
appears to consider that the powers of Secy. of 
Navy as well as of Treasury are vested in him. 
I am getting heartily tired of his meddling.’’®° 
The consolation of Slidell’s mission was that, 
although something or other was going wrong 
nearly all the time, not everything did so at once. 
) In the same month of his anxiety over Spence and 
the loans, developments in Mexico freed Na- 
poleon’s hands and augured well for a policy of 
May 10, 1863. 


* Spence to Slidell, May 11, 1863. 
* May 15, 1863. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 215 


intervention. “I am to have an audience with 
the Emperor on Friday,” wrote Slidell, “from 
which I hope good results, as the recent successes 
in Mexico leave him freer to act than he was be- 
fore. In the meanwhile [and here Slidell shows 
an attention to preparation and detail which 
marks the conscientious diplomat] pray endeavour 
to ascertain what will be the probable result of 
Mr. Roebuck’s motion on the thirtieth and let 
me know. The motion will in all probability be 
alluded to by the Emperor.’”®* But the interview 
came and passed, with intervention still a dream 
of the future, and Slidell thought it best to await 
the outcome of the French elections before making 
his next move.*” 

In June, 1863, while Lee was gathering his 
army for the push towards Gettysburg, Slidell was 
quietly working on the shipping problem. He 
favored selling a certain vessel to Russia, in order 
to be in funds for the building of two others of a 
more suitable type, and he declared mysteriously 
that ‘““Another advantage would result from the 
sale to Russia. It would give increased facilities 
to another operation you wot of.’ 

In the more conventional field of his negoti-j 
ations he faced the old issue of procrastination. | 
Napoleon’s attitude of friendliness toward the 
Confederacy remained unchanged, but so did his 

% Another letter of the same date (May 15, 1863). 


May 23, 1863. 
* June 26, 1863. 


216 JOHN SLIDELL 


disposition not to act without England. With a 
view to securing this cooperation, however, he 
had once more, June 22, sounded Palmerston, the 
Emperor himself writing a note to his minister at 
London, Baron Gros, in which he used the words, 
“je me demande s’il ne serait bien d’arester Lord 
Palmerston que je suis décidé a reconnaitre le 
Sud.’’** Slidell learned this through his confiden- 
tial friend at the foreign office, and he allowed 
himself an exultation keener than any he had 
known since first he learned of Napoleon’s 
friendly sentiments, keener, it may be added, than 
his previous disappointments should have counte- 
nanced. In his exuberance he wrote to Mason 
that, 


This is by far the most significant thing the Emperor 
has said either to me or to others—it renders me com- 
paratively indifferent what England may do or omit doing. 

At all events, let Mr. Roebuck press his motion and 
make his statement of the Emperor’s declarations. Lord 
Palmerston will not dare to dispute [and] the responsi- 
bility of the continuance of the war will rest entirely 
with him.% 


Again everything led only to disappointment. 
Mr. Roebuck presented a motion which indicated 
no cognizance of the Emperor’s intentions. But 
Slidell was disposed to acquit the Emperor of any 
blame. “I am satisfied,’ he wrote Mason, “that 
he has kept his promise with good faith. Either 


* June 29, 1863. 
*° Tbid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 217 


the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Baron Gros or 
both have failed to carry out his instructions or 
Messrs. Russell and Layard have asserted what 
was false. Perhaps Lord Palmerston may have 
recd. the communication and failed to inform 
their [sic] colleagues of the fact. I hope that this 
may prove to be the fact.’’*® 

Gettysburg, and the prospect of French inter4 
vention failed together. The high-water mark,| 
both on the battlefield and in the field of diplo- 
macy, had been reached. From that time on the} 
history of the Confederacy was that of a co 
and fall. Nor was it otherwise with the Slidell 
mission. Occasional gleams of hope illumined the 
monotony of disappointment. But the realist 
could see only final despair. The true barometer 
of foreign aspirations lay in England. By Sep- 
tember Slidell was as gloomy over the luke-warm 
aid of friends as over the avowed antagonism of 
enemies. “Sir James Ferguson and Mr. Gregory 
in the debate on Roebuck’s motion seemed to be 
as indisposed to recognize us as Russell and 
Bright. They give us fair words it is true, but 
beyond these we have nothing to expect of 
(deveinaee ot 

For such satisfaction as was to be gleaned, one 
was obliged to turn to social rather than to diplo- 
matic life. In the beau monde the Slidells were 


July 9, 1863. 
September 16, 1863. 


218 JOHN SLIDELL 


conspicuous.°” Slidell pictures their life at Paris 
with a justifiable pride at the position of his wife 
and family. 


My family and I have been twice to the receptions of 
the Empress. She received Mrs. S. and the girls most 
graciously. At these parties men are not presented to her 
but at her request. On both occasions she sent for me. 
on the first she talked with me for more than 20 minutes. 
She is perfectly well posted about our affairs, and under- 
stands the question in all its bearings thoroughly. At my 
second visit she conversed probably 10 or 12 minutes and 
was very particular in inquiring about the siege of 
Charleston. 

She sympathises most warmly with our cause and so 
expresses herself without any reserve. I mention these 
facts because the Empress is supposed, I believe with 
truth, to exercise considerable influence in public affairs. 

I forgot to mention that the Emperor at the sec- 
ond reception of the Empress was present—he came to me 
and shook hands and conversed very cordially for several 
minutes.%§ 


The correspondence with Mason apparently 
ceased in September, 1863, for the remainder of 
the year, so that Slidell’s views upon the course of 
affairs in the autumn and winter are not available 
from this source. It is not difficult to imagine, 
however, that the round of diplomatic calls con- 
tinued to be engrossing, nerve-destroying, and 
fruitless, while in the world of society, the fasci- 


"Long afterwards the Comtesse de St. Roman in describing 
the gaieties of these days writes, ‘How often did we hunt together 
both stags and wild boars with’ the packs of the Duc d’ Aumale 
and Prince de Joinville and the Marquis de Lubersac.” To the 
author, August 10, 1922. 


* Biarritz, September 16, 1863. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 219 


nation of Paris brought the Slidells more and 
more under its spell. Certainly the busy record 
of the first two years leads one to believe that 
Slidell continued at his task, indefatigable and 
urbane, ready for every opportunity to advance 
the cause nearest his heart. 

Communication, at any rate as far as the files} 
are now preserved, was renewed in March, 1864.) 
Slidell discusses with Mason some details of the 
naval war,°® puts him on his guard against Fortu- 
natus Crosby, formerly a consul at Geneva, now 
posing as a friend of the South, but more probably 
an emissary in the pay of Seward,’®° and denies 
the rumor that French intervention is imminent. 
He reports a very friendly interview with M. 
Drouyn de Lhuys in which the latter expressed 
his southern sympathies with more than usual 
warmth, and intimated that Lord Palmerston also 
was full of admiration for the Confederacy and 
confident of its ability to maintain itself, informa- 
tion to this effect having come to the foreign 
office through a Frenchman high in the confidence 
of the Emperor, who had been honored with a 
recent interview with the British premier.*®* 
Drouyn apparently did not feel entire confidence 
in the correctness of these statements, inasmuch 
as he urged Slidell himself to ascertain Lord 

* March 6, 1864. 


1 Ibid. 
*! March 9, 1864. 


220 JOHN SLIDELL 


Palmerston’s intentions, a not very easy task, to 
be sure, but one which Slidell attempted to carry 
out through the assistance of Colonel Mann, in 
the supposed absence of Mason from London.'” 
Judging, however, from the course which the 
government actually pursued, the real views of M. 
Drouyn de Lhuys were far removed from those 
which he expressed to Slidell. To one of his col- 
leagues he declared that the supposed renewal of 
negotiations between France and England tending 
toward a recognition of the Confederacy was “ab- 
solutely without foundation.’'°? It was true that 
France and possibly Lord Palmerston also took a 
friendly attitude toward the Confederacy, but the 
time to manifest this was by no means opportune, 
more especially as Napoleon was as determined as 
ever not to act alone.*™ 
i Contradictions like these of Drouyn de Lhuys 
bere becoming familiar to Slidell, but in the pres- 
nt instance there was the added chagrin of the 
failure to secure a promised interview with the 
Archduke Maximilian, who was on the point of 
leaving for Mexico. Slidell’s comment on this is 
bitter. 
I have reason to believe that in declining to see me, he 
followed the advice of the Emperor influenced by Mercier 


saying that Lincoln had assured him that the Imperial gov- 
ernment in Mexico would be recognized at Washington 


102 Thid. 
1 March 13, 1864. 
1% Thid. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 221 


provided no negotiations were entered into with the Con- 
federacy. 

All this is very disgusting and I find it very difficult to 
keep my temper amidst all this double dealing. 
This is a rascally world and it is most hard to say who can 
be trusted.1° 


Pious lamentations upon the world’s duplicity 
did not prevent Slidell from contributing his mite 
toward the sum total thereof. Unable to see 
Maximilian directly, he worked upon the sympa- 
thies of General Wold, his aide-de-camp, and the 
only Frenchman in his suite, therefore the most 
likely of all to present the Confederate cause in a 
favorable light to the Emperor. “I have talked 
to him very freely,’ writes Slidell, “as to the con- 
sequences that will result from a refusal to be on 
good terms with the Confederacy. He agrees 
with me fully and will have ample opportunity of 
impressing his views on the Archduke during the 
passage to) Vera Cruz’ -"° 

These subterranean methods made the £500 re- 
ceived in June, 1864, for secret-service account a 
welcome addition to the £1500 allowance for a 
contingent fund.'°’ Perhaps it oiled an occasional 
cog at the foreign office and procured for Slidell 
such gossip as “that the British Government has 
made definite overtures of energetic measures to 
curb the German governments and that they are 

hid, 


*8 March 22, 1864. 
*T June 9, 1864. 


222 JOHN SLIDELL 


rn 
favorably listened to here—my informant would 
not be surprised at a general European war this 
summer. he is very reliable. I give you this for 
what it is worth.”’?° 

The war had now dragged on into mid-1864. 
Its outcome was more and more dubious. The 
advantages which an early recognition by Europe 
might have won for the Confederacy were already 
forfeited. In Slidell’s words, 


The time has now arrived when it is comparatively of 
very little importance what Queen or Emperor may say or 
think about us. A plague | say on both your houses. I 
have an autograph letter of the Emperor to a friend, say- 
ing that he had given an order to let the Rappahannock go 
to sea. the letter is dated 7 inst. and yet the permission is 
still withheld by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.199 


In default of material aid from France and 
Great Britain, Slidell was skeptical of the advan- 
tages to be derived from the moral aid of the 
‘Papacy. Thus, in December, 1864, when Sher- 
man was well on his way to the sea, Slidell opposed 
the publication of a letter from Cardinal Antonelli, 
the papal secretary of state, 

as it was much less decided in its tone than the Pope’s 
letter to the President of Decr. 63. . . . Mr) Mann 
does not agree with me in opinion. he thinks the publica- 
tion of Antonelli’s note desirable. I am never very ten- 


acious of my opinion unless in matters of very grave im- 
portance and this is not of that category. 


lot: 
* July 17, 1864. > 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 223 


Pray let me know what you think. if you agree with 
me I will write to Mann that I do not object to publishing 
the letter in Belgium but that I would rather that it should 
not appear in the London or the Paris papers.11° 


Mason sided with Mann, and Slidell yielded to 
their judgment. 

In Slidell’s mission, as in the affairs of the 
Confederacy at home, 1864 was a year of reverses. 
Less is heard of even the possibility of interven- 
tion. A possible break-up of the blockade is not 
once mentioned. Comments upon naval construc- 
tion and the interpretation of the law of prizes” 
are pessimistic. Even in Mexico, where a ray of 
hope might be said to gleam, failure to establish a 
direct contact with Maximilian was disappointing. 
Such a weight of despair the polite nothings of 
Drouyn de Lhuys, the imaginary favor of Palmer- 
ston, and the conventional benedictions of Anto- 
nelli were by no means adequate to counter- 
balance. The hopes of the Confederacy were 
sinking. 

Early in the new year came rumors of peace, 
which at first appeared incredible to Slidell. 

I am completely bewildered about the peace rumors?!" 
[he wrote]. I attached no importance to them until the 
news of Blair’s return to Richmond. This indeed looks 


as if some serious negotiation were on foot, and yet I 
cannot conceive on what it can be based. From what point 


*° December 16, 1864. 
™ See a letter of December 18, 1864. 
™ February 3, 1865. 


224 JOHN SLIDELL 


of departure can it commence? Our affairs have never 
appeared to be in a worse condition and it is difficult to 
imagine that Lincoln would now entertain the idea of 
separation which he has so long and so_ studiously 
rejected. 

On the other hand, I cannot permit myself for a moment 
to suppose that President Davis would listen to any terms 
of which independence was not the indispensible prelimi- 
nary condition. I have endeavored to get some information 
here but without success. are you better posted than I? 
I have not written you for a long while, but I have had 
nothing to communicate and there has been little in the 
news from home to invite comment.!13 


But, until peace became an actuality, Slidell’s 
mission went on in its accustomed rut. Lord John 
Russell continued to be the béte noir ;'** Mason 
continued to receive advice on the proper ap- 
proaches to Lord Palmerston in the light of de- 
‘velopments at Paris ;'"® and agreeable but fruitless 
sessions with the Emperor, his cabinet, and inti- 
mate friends, continued to absorb the time of Sli- 
dell.17® An interview with Napoleon on March 
5, 1865, brought him no nearer the goal than their 
first colloquy at Vichy in 1862. “My interview 
with the Emperor resulted as I supposed it would. 
He is willing and anxious to act with England but 
will not move without her.”1’7 And England had 
rejected his overtures too often to warrant the 

"8 Ibid, 

™ February 14, 1865. 

“8 March 5, 1865. 


"8 March 5, 6, 1865. 
™ March 6, 1865. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 225 


expectation that she would ever heed them. In 
fact, in the judgment of Napoleon, it was useless 
for Mason to press the issue further, until Beaure- 
gard should prove his ability to stop the northward 
progress of Sherman’s army. This notwithstand- 
ing the fact that in other matters England was 
manifesting a disposition increasingly conciliatory 
toward Napoleon.*"® 

Mason, it appears, had doubted the fact of the 
overtures to which Napoleon alluded, for Sli- 
dell took occasion to remind him of Lord Palmer- 
ston’s “implicit admission” to that effect.17° It 
was in their last interchange of letters before Ap- 
pomattox. A curious blindness to events and their 
significance obscured from Mason even the finality 
involved in Lee’s surrender. He continued to 
hope against hope. The more practical mind of 
Slidell grasped the issue in its fullest bearings. 
His letter to Mason on April 26, 1865, is the 
swan-song of their mission.’”° 


My dear Sir. 


I cannot share your hopefulness. we have seen the 
beginning of the end. I for my part am prepared for the 
worst. With Lee’s surrender there will soon be an end 
of our regularly organised armies and I can see no pos- 
sible good to come from a protracted guerilla warfare. 
We are crushed and must submit to the yoke. our chil- 
dren must bide their time for vengeance, but you and I 


“8 Ibid. 
“9 March 22, 1865. 
2 April 26, 1865. 


226 JOHN SLIDELL 


will never revisit our homes under our glorious flag. For 
myself I shall never put my foot on a soil over which 
flaunts the hated stars and stripes. 

I went yesterday to the Foreign Affairs but Mr. C. had 
already left his office. I have sent Eustis [his secretary 
of legation] to make the inquiries you desired and shall 
keep my letter open to give you the result—but before 
you receive this you will probably have another steamers 
news with Lincoln’s program of pacification and recon- 
Struction. I am sick, sick at heart. 

Yours faithfully, 
John Slidell. 


Slidell’s comments upon the assassination of 
Lincoln are not preserved in the files of his corre- 
spondence with Mason. But, in the accession of 
Andrew Johnson, he foresaw mischief. To Ma- 
son’s suggestion that there were elements in the 
situation promising a new lease of life for the 
Confederacy, Slidell replied without enthusiasm. 
“T confess I can see no grounds for the hopes you 
entertain unless some drunken outbreak of Andy 
Johnson should induce Grant to take possession of 
the government and thus produce a civil war in 
the North. A few months, however, perhaps a 
few weeks, will decide which of us is right.’’*? 

The personal fortunes of Slidell declined with 
the cause for which he labored. The capture of 
New Orleans, followed by the confiscation of his 
property by the Union authorities, cut off his chief 
source of private income. He was obliged at that 
time to discontinue an annuity of $600 previously 


™ May 1, 1865. 


AT THE COURT OF NAPOLEON III 227 


paid to a maiden sister and, for his own wants, 
to depend upon his salary as a commissioner. 
With the war at an end, this also terminated, 
though all arrears in salary were made good to 
him and Mason from a small unexpended balance 
of Confederate funds still in the hands of Fraser, 
Trenholm and Co., fiscal agents for the defunct 
government. Slidell, accordingly, gave up his ex- 
pensive apartment and economized in various 
other ways. “TI little thought,’ he wrote Mason, 
“when we left the Confederacy that the time could 
arrive when I should be compelled to make these 
calculations, but so it is and I trust that I bear 
the change with a considerable degree of philoso- 
phy.”???. That he was in some straits is clear 
enough from his decision to sell his library.’** 
Yet his desire to realize upon all available assets 
proceeded not so much from immediate want as 
from a conviction that no more funds would ever 
be forthcoming from America. “We [Mr. Mason 
and I] are peculiarly situated,’ he reminded an 
English correspondent, “‘as we can have no expec- 
tation of ever returning to our homes or recover- 
ing any of our property (our children may some 
day or other save something from the general 
wreck), for even if we were disposed to apply for 
grace, I cannot stomach the word pardon, no 
amnesty would be extended to us, certainly neither 


2 May 29, 1865. 
% July 26, 1865. 


228 JOHN SLIDELL 


to Mr. Mason nor to me. Mr. Mann might pos- 
sibly have some chance of being forgiven, but I 
have no idea he will make the experiment.”!** 

It is not likely that, in the wreck of hopes so 
many and so great, Slidell felt much anxiety over 
pecuniary embarrassments present or threatening. 
Life, which had begun so auspiciously and had 
continued by emptying upon him her horn of 
plenty, was falling into the sere and yellow leaf, 
his glory and his hope alike departed, and bitter- 
ness his destined portion. The maker of Presi- 
dents was an exile; the cause he had aided a ruin. 
Whatever his few years remaining might behold 
must be the anti-climax of tragedy. 


™ July 26, 1865. 


CHAE Rox 
CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 


HERE can be no doubt of Slidell’s sincerity 

in desiring never again to set foot on Amer- 
ican soil, but the interests of his children in the 
confiscated estates, which he had meanwhile deeded 
to them, caused him to humble his pride to the ex- 
tent of applying to President Johnson in August, 
1866, for permission to visit New Orleans. The 
communication was forwarded through the 
courtesy of John Bigelow, who had been Union 
chargé d’ affaires at Paris throughout the war. 
Slidell was mindful of the dignity of the cause 
which he had represented, but, with his usual per- 
ception of facts, he did not disguise that he must 
now be the suppliant. The letter is notable.* 


Mr. President. 


I have for the last year been desirous to return, at least 
for a limited period, to the State of Louisiana, but have 
deferred asking permission to do so, believing that the 
policy which you intended to pursue towards persons situ- 
ated as I am, had not been decided on by you, or if de- 
cided, that the time had not arrived for promulgating it. 
The condition of the world would now seem to authorize 


1 August 6, 1866. Quoted in a letter to Mason, October 7, 1866. 


230 JOHN SLIDELL 


the hope that the day is not distant when that reserve 
will no longer be considered necessary. 

My antecedents are known to you, and it would be 
worse than useless [to] trespass on your valuable time to 
recur more particularly to them. It may not however 
be improper for me to say, that since the month of May 
’65, I have without intruding my counsels on any one, 
invariably advised such ci-devant Confederates returning 
to their former homes as have thought fit to ask my opin- 
ion, to accept frankly the issue of the past struggle with 
all its legitimate consequences, the first of which I con- 
sider to be an unreserved submission to the authority of 
the government of the United States. With this brief 
explanation, I solicit permission to visit the State of Lousi- 
ana and respectfully ask to be informed on what condi- 
tions, if on any, I may be allowed to do so. 

I have the honor to be with great respect 

Your Mt. Obedt. Sr. 
John Slidell. 
To the President of the United States, 
Washington. 


I have thought it proper to send this letter unsealed 
through the Legation of the United States at Paris. 


Four months having passed without reply, Sli- 
dell concluded that none was intended. He wrote 
an account of the whole episode to Mason, empha- 
sizing that the proposed visit was solely in his 
children’s interest, and reiterating his determina- 
tion not to apply for a special pardon, though 
admitting his willingness to take advantage of any 
general pardon which might cover his case without 
the imposition of humiliating conditions. 


For mstance [he declared], I would not object to pledge 
myself to do no act hostile to the government of the U. S. 


CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 231 


for without any such pledge, I should discourage any 
attempt for a renewed movement, satisfied that our peo- 
ple have been too dreadfully crippled to make one suc- 
cessfully for many years. Nothing would induce me ever 
to become a citizen of the U. S. nor will any of my chil- 
dren, I trust, ever establish themselves there. Indeed 
could I return tomorrow to Louisiana, be elected by accla- 
mation to the Senate and received without contradiction 
at Washington, I would shrink with disgust from any 
association with those who now pollute the Capitol. 

One word of explanation—my declaration about advice 
given to Confederates returning to their homes is strictly 
correct, but I have never advised any so to return, who 
were not absolutely without means to reside abroad or 
the necessary qualities and connections to enable them to 
support themselves decently elsewhere, nor had leave been 
given to me to visit Louisiana would I have accepted it 
coupled with any other condition than a parole of honor 
to do nothing hostile to the government.? 


Nevertheless, when Mason found in 1869 that 
he was one of those who would be better off at 
home in Virginia, Slidell approved the move and 
admitted that in similar circumstances he would 
have done the same.’ 


But having one daughter married in France and Mrs. 
Slidell with the two others having become not only accus- 
tomed to but satisfied with Parisian life—having no inter- 
est which could be advanced by my presence in America— 
feeling that I could not possibly render any service to any 
one or any cause at home, I have made up my mind to let 
the remainder of my days, in the course of nature it can- 
not be a long one, glide away quietly in Paris. There is 
no great hardship in this, for there is no spot on earth 
where the “dolce far niente” can be more fully enjoyed.* 


? October 7, 1866. 
® November 3, 1869, 
* Ibid, 


232 JOHN SLIDELL 


That Slidell, in spite of financial reverses, more 
anticipated, perhaps, than they were real, was in 
position to enjoy the more refined delights of Paris 
is attested by his daughter. In writing of post- 
bellum days the Comtesse de St. Roman declares 
that her father was under no necessity to practice 
law, notwithstanding “the illegal sale of his prop- 
erty in Louisiana by the rascal, General Butler.’”® 
Nor was he under the compulsion of burdening his 
friends. “ ‘La vie chere’, which is such a plague 
in France victorious but temporarily ruined, did 
not exist then, was not dreamed of, and the in- 
comes of the sums he had brought to Paris at 
different periods and invested with wisdom, were 
sufficient to secure ‘un train de vie’ which I may 
describe as more than comfortable, ‘fait avec 
élégance’.’”® 

Social relations were maintained with those 
agreeable circles among which the Slidells had 
always moved. No irritation which Slidell had 
felt at British policy toward the Confederacy pre- 
vented, for example, renewal of friendly inter- 
course with Lord Lyons on his transfer to Paris. 
As the daughter of Slidell expresses it, ““We were, 
after Washington, again at Paris in the most inti- 
mate contact with all the English embassy. Lord 

° The Comtesse de St. Roman does not forget that her mother’s 
sister, Caroline Deslonde, wife of Gen. Gustave Tontan de Beaure- 


gard, died ot horror of the entrance of Gen, Butler into New 
Orleans. To the author, August 31, 1922. 


*Mme. la Comtesse de St. Roman to the author, Aug. 31, 1922. 


CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 233 


Lyons was an intimate and charming friend in 
Washington; he remained so in Paris.”* 

One is tempted to compare the post-bellum 
career of Slidell with that of Benjamin. But to 
do so is not quite fair. Benjamin was a younger 
man returning to his native country. And while 
it is a marvel of the law that he was able to rise to 
such distinction at the English bar, time and cir- 
cumstance were alike more favorable to him than 
to the older man, whose race was already so nearly 
run. 

Notwithstanding his own contentment with this 
luxurious retirement, Slidell approved the decision 
of his son Alfred to enter the bond business in 
New York and to acquire residence and citizen- 
ship as a step toward the prolonged litigation 
which would be involved in a recovery of the con- 
fiscated property in Louisiana. Thus reconstruc- 
tion was weaving even so torn and shattered a 
thread as the Slidells into the woof of a new na- 
tion, and the mission of the emissary of Confeder- 
acy and disunion had come to its philosophical as 
well as its technical end. 

Some allusions to Slidell in this twilight of his 
days occur in letters from Judah P. Benjamin to 
Senator Mason, who, as the author well knew, 
was certain to feel an interest in any mention of 
his erstwhile colleague. Thus, in October, 1866, 
at the conclusion of a lengthy epistle, Benjamin 


*Same to same. Easter Day, 1925. 


234 JOHN SLIDELL 


mentions that “I saw Slidell in Paris, looking well 
and he inquired warmly after you.” The follow- 
ing May, 1867, Benjamin declares that ‘Slidell is 
the same as ever. I see no change in him.” A 
third and final reference narrates sympathetically 
the circumstances of Mrs. Slidell’s death. 

Slidell is in London, and I see him as often as one well 
can in this great City where distances are so formidable, 
and the habits of society so much opposed to any facility 
for evening social intercourse, unless preceded by a 
formal dinner party. His family were all at Brighton, 
when Mrs. Slidell who was apparently in perfect health 
(an hour after having left her daughters in good and 
cheerful spirits in the drawing room) [was found] lying 
senseless on the floor of her bedroom, and she never re- 
covered consciousness. She died in two or three hours 
afterwards, and I am not sure whether the attack was 
apoplectic or from disease of the heart, but I think the 
former. 


The death of Mrs. Slidell on English soil was 
release from a second exile. Even as the Civil 
War had transferred the family to France, so the 
Franco-Prussian War compelled a further move. 
The Slidells were at Deauville when the Second 
Empire crashed. Their grief for Napoleon’s mis- 
fortunes was altogether genuine. Slidell felt for 
Napoleon and Eugénie a bond of sympathy all the 
stronger because of the imperial solicitude for his 
own misfortunes. As the Comtesse de St. Roman 
remarks, ‘“The Emperor had overwhelmed us with 


* Correspondence between Judah P. Benjamin and James M. 
Mason. Typed copy in the Library of Congress, 


CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 235 


attentions as well as the beautiful Empress Eu- 
génie.” She accompanied her father on an imme- 
diate visit to the imperial couple in their exile.® 

The opinions of Slidell upon politics both Amer- 
ican and French in the era of reconstruction for 
the one, of catastrophe approaching for the other, 
can be gleaned but partially. Speaking first of 
his American observations, it appears from the 
recollections of the Comtesse de St. Roman that 
though her father did not pass active censure on 
the military policy of the Confederacy, “I am con- 
vinced that in his heart he suffered deeply.” Re- 
plying to the question, “Did he ever come to feel 
that it was for the best that the United States 
remained. a single nation?” his daughter affirms 
that “on this point he never spoke as much as a 
single word.” Of Lincoln and his death, he 
avoided making any mention. He came to think 
once more with kindness of Stephen A. Douglas. 
August Belmont he never met again, but the ladies 
of the Belmont family were most affectionately 
welcomed during their long and frequent stays in 
Paris: 

Toward French politics, Slidell’s attitude can be 
gleaned in part from his daughter’s reply to the 
question “What was his opinion as to the charac- 
ter and ability of Napoleon III?” and “Did he 
blame him for the commencement and the outcome 
of the Franco-Prussian War?” She writes as 


° Mme, la Comtesse de St. Roman to the author, March 27, 1925. 


236 JOHN SLIDELL 


follows: “He had for him [Napoleon] a deeply 
sincere attachment and therefore all the more 
regret for his trials but was there not in these 
two men the same pang?’ With personal ap- 
proval so unqualified, there is scant likelihood, one 
may suppose, that Slidell perceived the disastrous 
tendencies in Napoleon’s foreign policies. 

But Slidell’s observations on the passing scene, 
however shrewd, however tinged with sadness, 
were drawing toward their close. To one who had 
endured so much of disappointment, the loss of his 
companion in happiness and in sorrow was a blow 
from which recovery was impossible. It is not 
surprising, therefore, that Mrs. Slidell, by only a 
few months, preceded her husband in death. 
Through the kindness of their daughter, I am en- 
abled to include a letter, one of the last he ever 
wrote, from Slidell to his brother-in-law, Rear 
Admiral Raymond Rogers, husband of Slidell’s 
youngest sister, Julia. Admiral Rogers was com- 
mander of the United States fleet in the Mediter- 
ranean. 

London 29 Belgrave Square 
Xmas Day 1870. 
My dear Raymond 


Many thanks for your kind letter. As this may not 
find you at Darmstadt, I put it under cover to Julia. 

I have full faith in your expression of sympathy and 
regrets for the departed, for those who best knew her 
most admired and loved her. I have great consolation in 
the consciousness that in our married life of thirty-five 


CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 237 


years there had been no cloud between us: had there been, 
it must have been my fault, for in all her relations, do- 
mestic and social, it would have been difficult to find any 
human being nearer perfection. I feel that for my chil- 
dren it would have been in every way better that I should 
have been the first called: to us all the loss is irreparable. 

Our grief is much soothed by the reflection that she 
passed without any physical pain. Julia may perhaps 
have heard me express a wish that when my time should 
come, I might be spared the sufferings of a protracted 
illness ; the sudden death which our liturgy deprecates has 
never had any terrors for me, to be stricken down with 
intellect unimpaired and without bodily pain has always 
been a consummation to be wished. 

I have frequently said so, surrounded by those who were 
dear to me, but could never find an assenting voice. Now, 
I believe all share my opinion. 

We are all much gratified at your approaching visit. 

We see no strangers, but you will always be welcome. 

This day, festive to so many, is a dreary one to us. The 
weather too is in accordance with our feelings: the fog is 
so dense that, writing at midday, I can scarcely dispense 
with a lamp. 

With best love to Julia and the children, believe me, 
my dear Raymond, 

Yours faithfully, 
John Slidell. 


Writing after the death of Slidell at Cowes in 
1871, Barlow, an erstwhile associate in the great 
days of 1856, pays a tribute fully justified by the 
life of his subject. ‘‘His pure personal character, 
his indomitable and coercive will, his undoubted 
courage, and his cool and deliberate good sense 
gave him a high place among the advisers of the 
Confederate cause.’’*° 

*G. T. Curtis, Buchanan, II, 173. 


238 JOHN SLIDELL 


The present study of Slidell can not pretend 
to have altered his place in history. His fame as 
the indefatigable commissioner of the Confeder- 
acy was already secure. The importance, also, of 
his mission to Mexico was recognized, and he was 
known as one of perhaps a dozen leaders in the 
ante-bellum South whose decision for or against 
the Union would prove decisive. It is possible 
that Slidell’s connection with Buchanan and the 
large share which he had personally in the election 
of 1856 and in the subsequent policies of Bucha- 
nan are here revealed more fully than before. But 
the justification for a somewhat fuller treatment 
of Slidell than has previously appeared lies less in 
the novelty of the material than in the importance 
of the man. Slidell possessed many elements of 
greatness, and he lived in the midst of great 
events. The history of the Old South demands at 
least this slight recognition of one of her most 
striking personalities. 

It is not for the biographer to praise or to con- 
demn, but the present writer cannot conclude his 
labors without tribute to the human qualities of 
the subject. Slidell was slow in attaining that 
greatness which finally marked him for her own. 
Similarly, I believe, his political methods enlarged 
with the growing field for their employment. The 
qualities of a local boss, to which Jackson took 
exception, are not the qualities of a United States 
senator striving to protect the citizens of Wash- 


CONCLUSION AND RETROSPECTION 239 


ington from exploitation at the hands of traction 
magnates. Coldness toward the bleeding Sumner 
is forgotten in the courage which turned its back 
upon the labors of a life-time lost and faced the 
future with tranquility. And, all the while, 
whether in the heat of political passion or the calm 
of retrospection, Slidell embodied one great virtue 
which Americans admire; the beauty and charm 
of his home life are beyond cavil. 

Altogether, in the fulness of reconstruction, it 
is fair to include Slidell in the calendar of distin- 
guished Americans. Destiny called him to serve 
a section rather than a nation at a time when the 
whole had lost all meaning to some of its parts. 
Yet time with its healing touch has removed most 
of the agony of the period, leaving the outstand- 
ing figures of an heroic age to claim the homage 
of their countrymen, North and South. Among 
these, Slidell, always at his post of duty, moving 
heaven and earth to win friends for his cause, 
resolute to the end and undaunted by its conse- 
quences, merits a place as one of the great 
Americans who, like Franklin, have pleaded an 
American issue before the bar of world opinion. 





BUBIEO GRAPE 


THE BucHANAN Papers. Library of the Historical 
Society of Pennsylvania. 

THe ANDREW JAcKson Donetson Papers. Library of 
Congress. 

Tue Witiram L. Marcy Papers. Library of Congress. 

Tue JAMes M. Mason Papers. Library of Congress. 

Correspondence Between Judah P. Benjamin and James 
M. Mason. Typed Copy in the Library of Congress. 

Tue Nicuotas P. Trist Papers. Library of Congress. 

THE VAN Buren Papers. Library of Congress. 

The Congressional Globe. 

Louisiana Reports. Book 5. 6 Martin’s Reports. (N.S.) 

The Daily Picayune. New Orleans. 

The Daily True Delta. New Orleans. 

The Daily Delta. New Orleans. 

The Louisiana Courier. New Orleans. 

The Richmond Enquirer. Richmond. 

Illinois State Historical Journal, 1912. Article by Wil- 
liam E. Dodd. 

American Historical Review, 1899-1900. Article by 
E. G. Bourne. 

Apams, CHARLES Francis, Richard Henry Dana. 

ADAMS, CHARLES FrRANcts, The Trent Affair, an Histor- 
ical Retrospect. 

ApAms, JOHN Quincy, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. 

Letter Upon the Annexation of Texas Addressed to Hon. 
John Quincy Adams. 1845. 

Memorial of Alexander J. Atocha to the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the Umted States. 

Bancroft, H., History of Mexico. 

BicELow, JOHN, France and the Confederate Navy. (New 
York, 1888.) 

BicELow, JouHN, Retrospections of An Active Life. (New 
York. ) 


242 JOHN SLIDELL 


etre Pierce, Judah P. Benjamin. (Philadelphia, 

1907.) 

Curtis, Grorce Ticknor, Life of James Buchanan. 

Dana, Ricwarp Henry, The Trent Affair, an Aftermath. 

Dusots, JAMeEs T. AND MATHEWS, GERTRUDE S., Galusha 
A. Grow. (Boston, 1917.) 

Garrison, G. P., Westward Extension (American Nation 
Series). 

GREEN, SAMUEL AzssoTt, James Murray Mason and John 
Slidell in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor. 

GriFris, WILLIAM Extiot, Matthew Calbraith Perry. 

GRINNELL, JostaH BusNELL, Men and Events of Forty 
Years. (Boston, 1892.) 

Havsteap, Murat, A History of the National Political 
Conventions of the Current Presidential Campaign. 
(Columbus, 1860.) 

Harris, THomas L., The Trent Affair. (Indianapolis, 
1912.) 

Haynes, Georce H., Charles Sumner. (Philadelphia, 
1909.) 

Jounson, ALLEN, Stephen A. Douglas. (Macmillan, 
1908. ) 

Jurian, Georce W., The Life of Joshua R. Giddings. 
(Chicago, 1892.) 

Moore, J. B., The Works of James Buchanan. 

McLaucHLIn, ANDREW C., Lewis Cass. 

PuIuips, Utricu B., “The Correspondence of Toombs, 
Stephens, and Cobb.” Annual Report of the American 
Historical Association for 1911. Vol. II. 

Pork, JAMEs K., The Diary of James K. Polk. 

RICHARDSON, JAMES A., Messages and Papers of the 
Confederacy. 

SHEAHAN, JAMES W., The Life of Stephen A. Douglas. 
(New York, 1860.) 

Smi1TH, Justin Harvey, The War With Mexico. (New 
York, 1919.) 

Stanwoop, Epwarp, A History of Presidential Elections 
(Fourth Ed.) 

SUMNER, CHARLES, Complete Works 


INDEX 


Adams, Charles Francis, un- 
complimentary estimate, 212. 


Adams, John Quincy, convert- 
ed to Republicanism, 7; com- 
ment on _ Slidell’s Jackson 
speech, 26; comment on eu- 
logy of Bossier (foot-note), 
30; comment on tariff speech 
by Slidell (foot-note), 37; 
pupose: Texan annexation, 


Appleton, William, courteous to 
Slidell, a captive, 183. 


Appropriations, New Orleans 
Custom House, 44; recom- 
mendations for the same, 154. 


Atocha, Colonel Alexander J., 
go-between for Polk and 
Santa Anna, 68-69. 


Bancroft, George, severe on 
Slidell’s anti-Union ideas 
(foot-note), 136. 

Barlow, S. M., aids Buchanan’s 
nomination, 1856, 122, 123; 
tribute to the character of 
Slidell, 237. 

Baroche, M., President of the 
Council of State in France, 
187. 

Barrow, Senator Alexander, de- 
nounces Placquemine frauds, 
39; Senate seat vacant, 77; 
death, 102. 

Bassett, Professor John Spen- 
cer, author’s acknowledgment 
of indebtedness for letters 
(foot-note), 13. 

Bell, John, favors general river 
and harbor policy, 105; Pre- 


sidential candidate, 171; loses 
Louisiana by 3,000, 174. 


Belmont, August, marries Caro- 
line Perry, 6; sponsors news- 
paper for Buchanan, 87; in- 
forms Slidell of Buchanan- 
Marcy interview, 88; wishes 
Slidell at Baltimore, 1852, 
91; annoyed at Buchanan’s 
defeat, 1852, 94; seeks a di- 
plomatic post, 96; connec- 
tions at Madrid, 108; has 
European backing of the 
Rothschilds, 111; quits Buch- 
anan for Douglas, 159; never 
saw Slidell aiter Civil War, 
235. 


Benjamin, Judah P., of Jewish 
origin, 6; on bill to remove 
obstructions to the Mississ- 
ippi, 105; influential at Cin- 
cinnati, 1856, 122; recom- 
mended for a cabinet posi- 
tion, 140; recommended for 
mission to Madrid, 152; ac- 
cused of pandering to Wall 
Street, 155; defends Slidell 
on “Houmas” swindling 
charge, 157; accused of sharp 
practice (foot-note), 165; 
hearty support in “Houmas” 
case, 167; successful at the 
English bar, 233; mentions 
Slidell in letters to Mason, 
233-234; describes death of 
Mrs. Slidell, 234. 


Benton, Col. Thomas Hart, 
displeased with result of Sli- 
dell’s mission to Mexico, 71; 
opposes Slidell for Senate, 


244 INDEX 


78; not trusted by Buch- 


anan’s friends, 132. 

Bigelow, John, chargé d’ af- 
faires at Paris, 229. 

Billault, M., government speak- 
er in Chamber of Deputies, 
189; hopeful message to Sli- 
dell, 193; denies imminence 
of recognition, 196. 


Blockade, deeply resented in 
France, 209. 


Bossier, Hon. P. E., eulogy by 


Slidell, 29-30; its sentiments 
forgotten, 42. 
Brainard, Dr. Daniel, Chicago 


surgeon, 149; spreads anti- 
Douglas canard, 150; veracity 
is compromised, 151. 

Breckinridge, John C., Vice- 
Presidential nominee, 1856, 
124; Slidell’s choice for Pres- 
ident, 1860, 171; sure to car- 
ry South, 172. 


Bright, Senator Jesse D., of 
Indiana, returns to Senate, 
139; opposed by Douglas, 140. 


Bright, John, opposed to South- 
ern recognition, 217. 


Buchanna, James, first letter in 
Slidell correspondence, 37-38; 
approves Slidell’s course in 
Mexico, 64; not unfriendly 
to Mexico, 67; cordial on 
mission’s termination, 76-77 ; 
advised against Governorship 
of Pennsylvania, 80-81; sure 
to be a candidate in 1852, 
82; more available than Cass, 
84; Slidell’s choice for Presi- 
dent, 89; preferred to Cass 
by Douglas men, 91; preferr- 
ed to Douglas by Cass men, 
91; reputed views on admis- 
sion of Missouri, 92; reflec- 
tions on Baltimore Conven- 
tion, 1852, 94; supports Bel- 
mont for diplomatic post, 96; 


minister at Court of St. 
James, 100; diplomatic cos- 
tume, 106; not responsible 
for fiasco at Ostend, 115; 
author of Ostend Mani- 
festo, 115-116; sure of vic- 
tory in 1856, 119; testifies 
to friendship for Slidell, 
120; attitude on Kansas- 
Nebraska issue, 122; needs 
Slidell’s advice, 131; election 
purchased (foot-note), 135; 
presence in Washington de- 
sirable, 138; supports Cuban 
purchase bill, 154; testifies to 
admiration for Slidell, 159; 
not accused of imbecility by 
Slidell, 175-176; removal of 
Commandant at West Point, 
177-178; parts company with 
Slidell, 179-180. 


Calhoun, John C., advocate of 
Texan annexation, 51; con- 
ference with Polk, 70-71; de- 
sired Mexican mission for 
himself, 78; views on nation- 
al improvements, 130. 

California, offer to purchase it 
from Mexico, 58. 


Cameron, Simon, favors per- 
petual franchise for Washing- 
ton street railway, 161. 


Campbell, James, Postmaster- 
General under Pierce, 103. 


Cass, Lewis, respected by Sli- 
dell, 79; wins part of Louis- 
jana vote in 1848, 80; cannot 
be candidate in 1852, 82; pop- 
ular with best elements in 
party, 90; favors Slidell for 
cabinet position, 96; opposes 
Douglas nomination, 1856, 
120; objects to recall of 
troops from Kansas, 132; 
ideal nominee for Secretary 
of State, 140. 


Charleston Convention, 162-164. 


INDEX 245 


Cincinnati Convention, 122-124. 


Clay, Henry, an unobjection- 
able Whig, 81 

Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, dislik- 
ed by Slidell, 138. 

Cobb, Howell, political letter 
from Slidell, 89; lukewarm 
supporter of Buchanan, 91; 
letter from Robert M. Mc- 
Lane, 139; safer than Walker 
for the State Department, 
140. : 


Compromise of 1850, a tem- 
porary solution, 83. 

Cotton Loan of 1863, prelimi- 
nary overtures, 204; pro- 
posed by the Erlangers, 205; 
terms severe, 206; occupies 
Slidell in 1863, 207; definite- 
ly arranged, 208; the terms, 
208-209; finances ship-build- 
ing, 210; bonds decline, 211; 
rumors of a second loan, 213; 
its probable details, 214. 


Conner, Commodore, to inform 
Slidell of Mexican develop- 
ments, 76. 


Crosby, Fortunatus, 
as a spy, 219 


Cuba, likely to be “Africaniz- 
ed,” 108; a dominant interest 
with Slidell, 112; slight pros- 
pect of acquirement under 
Pierce, 115; still an objective 
in 1857-1858, 143; too late to 
interfere, 146; the $30,000,- 
000 Purchase Bill, 152; ever 
near the heart of Slidell, 160. 


Cushing, General Caleb, desir- 
able editor for a Buchanan 
newspaper? 87. 

Dana, Richard Henry, befriends 
the brother of Slidell, 22; 
ideas upon the Trent Affair, 
183. 


Davis, Jefferson, aids appoint- 
ment of Buchanan to Lon- 


suspected 


don mission, 100; desires to 
return to the Senate, 107; ad- 
vises Pierce on Cuban policy, 
111; plans to remove troops 
from Kansas, 131-132; 
speaks at Selma, Alabama, 
173; names Slidell to diplo- 
matic post, 180; Peace rum- 
ors, 224. 

Disraeli, Benjamin, on Russell- 
Seward agreement, 190; 
friendly but not helpful to 
the South, 197. 

Disunion, a _ possibility, 134; 
desirable under certain con- 
tingencies, 135-136; becomes 
more imminent, 144-145. 

Dodd, Professor William E., 
cited for statement that Sli- 
dell destroyed his papers, 2. 

Douglas, Stephen A., interested 
in railroads, 29; controls 
much predatory wealth, 87; 
popular with worst elements 
in party, 90; disastrous to 
nominate in 1852, 93; preli- 
minary conversations as to 
Missouri Compromise repeal, 
103; advises Pierce on Cu- 
ban policy, 111; opposed by 
Cass in 1856, 120; maneuv- 
ering at Cincinnati, 123; enti- 
tled to a letter from Buchan- 
an, 132; must be denied the 
patronage, 139; passage at 
arms with Slidell, 147; slan- 
dered as to treatment of his 
slaves, 149; wins support of 
Belmont, 159; arrogance at 
Charleston, 163; attacked in 
Campaign of 1860, 171; be- 
friended by Irish and Ger- 
mans, 174; once more re- 
garded kindly by Slidell, 235. 

Drouyn de Lhuys, M., succeeds 
Thouvenel, 205; Southern 
sympathies, 219; insincere 
statements, 220; polite noth- 
ings, 223. 


246 INDEX 


Everett, Edward, pleases Sli- 
dell by an able state paper, 
109. 

Eustis, George, defeats Sli- 
dell in a law case, 10. 

Eustis, George, Jr., Secretary of 
Legation, 181, 226. 

Filibustering, should be legaliz- 
ed, 143 

Floyd, John B., dismissed from 
War portfolio, 176; upheld 
by Slidell, 177. 

Fould, M., French minister of 
finance, 188. 

Frémont, John P.,_ election 
would disrupt the Union, 135- 
136. 

Garibaldi, Giuseppe, distracts 
attention from the South, 201; 
an obstacle to Southern 
plans, 203; mentioned, 210. 

Gettysburg. Battle of, turning 
point in diplomacy as well as 
war, 217. 

Giddings, Joshua, violently at- 
tached in House of Repre- 
sentatives, 40-41. 

Grant, Ulysses S., a potential 
dictator, 226. 

Grow, Galusha A., anecdote on 
Missouri-Compromise repeal, 
103. 

Grund, Francis, German leader 
in the Northwest, 133-134; 
friend of Brainard and Sli- 
dell, 149. 

Halstead, Murat, describes Sli- 
dell at Charleston, 162-164. 
Harris, Townsend, treaty with 

Siam, 146 


Houmas Frauds, mentioned, 
157; Slidell’s defense, 164- 
167; newspaper comment 


(foot-notes), 164-165. 
Hunkers and Barnburners, mis- 
taken attitude of Pierce, 106. 


Internal Improvements, views 


of Slidell, 129. 


Isolation, Slidell an isolationist, 
as witness Persian mission, 
143. 


Jackson, Andrew, appoints Sli- 
dell to office in New Orleans, 
11; mistrusts Slidell, 12; fin- 
a by Judge Hall in 1815, 
Zor 


Johnson, Andrew, possibility of 
drunken outbreaks, 226; no 
reply to petition of Slidell, 
230. 


Kansas, Pierce likely to pro- 
long its troubles, 131 


Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 103, 144. 

King, Preston, anti-duelling re- 
solution, 

Kossuth, Louis, not admired by 
Slidell, 93. 

Law, George, ocean mail con- 
tractor, 87. 

Law of Nations, numerous au- 
thorities cited, 145-146. 

Leopold I of Belgium, friendly 
to the South, 206; influence 
at London unavailing, 208. 


Lincoln, Abraham, nominated 
for President, 169; previous 
record colorless, 170; deter- 
mined to win the war, 208; 
aceon not discussed, 
26. 


Lyons, Lord, British minister 
at Washington, 191; friend- 
ly to Slidell at Paris, 232-233. 

Mackenzie, Alexander Slidell, 
courtmartialed for execution 
of Midshipman Philip Spen- 
cer, 20; loyal to his brother, 
74. 


McClellan, Gen. 
Peninsular 
its failure, 
plans, 203. 


George B., 
Campaign, 193; 
198; supposed 


INDEX 247 


Mann, Colonel Ambrose Dud- 
ley, on publication of Papal 
correspondence, 222-223; pos- 
sibility for pardon, 228. 

Marcy, William L., a power in 
New York, 85; must be con- 
ciliated, 87; master of New 
York in 1852, 88; campaign 
letter from lieutenant, 91; 
perhaps a second choice in 
1852, 93; receives Buchanan’s 
letter of condolence, 94; Se- 
cretary of State for Pierce, 
96 ; on simplicity in diplomatic 
costume, 106; strained rela- 
tions with Slidell, 112; will- 
ing to be nominated Presi- 
dent, 116; opposed by Slideil, 
117; break with Soulé, 117; 
administration of State De- 
partment subjected to attack, 
143. 

Maritime Law, American inter- 
pretation unlike European, 10. 

Mason, James Murray, less cap- 
able than Slidell, 180; Con- 
federate Commissioner at 
London, 187; agrees with col- 
league, 195; urges recognition 
of the South, 200; bolsters 
price of cotton bonds, 212; 
skeptical as to peace rumors, 
225; balance of his salary 
paid, 227; post-bellum situa- 
tion, 227-228; returns to Vir- 
ginia, 1869, 231. 

Maury, Captain, Confederate 
agent at St. Petersburg, 206; 
supervises ship-building, 210. 

Maximilian, Emperor, avoids 
granting interview to Sli- 
dell, 220. 

Mercier, Doctor, 
law of Soulé, 99 

Mercier, M., sent to Richmond 
by Napoleon III, 192; report 
not satisfactory, 193; instruc- 
tions mildly worded, 207-208. 


brother-in- 


Mexico, Slidell the logical ap- 
pointee for a mission, 45; 
projected compensation for 
territories purchased, 56; 
instability of governments, 
66; stupidity of plain people 
defeats the mission of Sli- 
dell, 69; final failure of the 
mission, 70; results of mis- 
sion summarized, 72-73. 

Morny, Duc de, offers opportu- 
nity to Slidell, 202. 

Napoleon III, to be reconciled 
to American designs on 
Cuba, 158; believed sympa- 
thetic towards the South, 188; 
foreign policy depends on 
England’s, 189; overtures to 
England, 189-190; sends Mer- 
cier to Richmond, 192; friend- 
liness reiterated, 193; friend- 
ship undoubted, 198; grants 
Slidell an interview, 198; acts 
in cabinet crisis, 205; policy 
unchanged, 215-216; very cor- 
dial to Slidell, 218; orders 
are not executed, 222; grants 
another interview, 224; down- 
aa of the Second Empire, 


Neutrality Laws, President 
should have authority to sus- 
pend them, 146. 

Nicaragua, political jobbery in 
the transit route, 155. 

Nichols, Dr. Roy F., indebted- 
ness to Dr. Nichols for Sli- 
dell letter, 124. 

Oregon, a factor in Mexican 
calculations, 63. 

Ostend Manifesto, 103; 111; 
117; Slidell a factor, 107. 
Palmerston, Lord, not to be 
counted on for South, 189; 
declarations as to French and 
British policy, 193; consider- 
ed friendly to the South, 195; 
not trusted by Slidell, 197; 


248 INDEX 


strength in Parliament, 198; 
206; 216; 217; 220; 223; re- 
ported confident of South’s 
success, 219. 


Papacy, friendly to the South, 
222-223. 


Paris Mission, Slidell is willing 
to accept it, 158. 

Paulding, Commodore Hiram, 
seizure of William Walker, 
143; technically within the 
law of nations, 145-146. 

Peace, its coming a surprise, 
223-224. 


Pefia y Pefia, relations with 
Slidell, 60-61. 
Perry, Commodore Matthew 


C., marries Slidell’s sister, 5; 
gifts to Mrs. Slidell, 15; en- 
tertains Slidell at Tarrytown, 
80; member of Naval Retir- 
ing Board, 125. 


Persia, Slidell opposes sending 
her a mission, 143. 

Persigny, Comte de, French 
minister of the interior, 187; 
forecasts recognition, 192; 
forecasts intervention, 198; 
writes encouragingly, 200; 
over-sanguine temperament, 
201; tells Slidell of Mercier’s 
instructions, 207. 

Pierce, Franklin, ignores Buch- 
ana for the State Department, 
97; failure of administra- 
tion is forecast, 98; suffers 
from weakness in his cabinet, 
106-107; evasiveness respect- 
ing Cuba, 111; disregarded by 
his party leaders, 1160; oppos- 
ed by Slidell, 117; breaks 
faith with Slidell, 118; gen- 
erally disliked by senators, 
119; the real competitor of 
Buchanan, 1856, 121; vetoes 
bill for internal improve- 
ments, 129; desires defeat of 


Buchanan at the polls, 131. 
Placquemine Frauds, dishonest 
voting in 1844, 39; counter- 
charges by Slidell, 40; de- 
tested by honest men, 157. 
Poland, insurrection hampers 
Southern interests, 210. 


Polk, James K., reasons for 
peaceful policy toward Mexi- 
co, 50; includes settlement 
of claims as a Mexican ob- 
jective, 52; precautions to in- 
sure Slidell’s reception, 55; 
sincere desire for California, 
57; corresponds with Santa 
Anna, 68; takes Calhoun into 
his confidence, 70; defends 
Slidell’s conduct of his mis- 
sion, 71. 

Pratt, Governor Thomas 
George, Slidell’s nominee for 
Collector of the Port of Bal- 
timore, 142, 

Pruyn, John N. L., letter to 
eae: on prospects of 1852, 


Public Improvements, Slidell’s 
consistent attitude, 148. 

Rhett, Robert Barnwell, Sli- 
dell’s disapproval, 89; a fire- 
eater, 137. 

Rogers, Rear Admiral Ray- 
mond, brother-in-law of Sli- 
dell, 236. 

Russell, Earl, not likely to aid 
the South, 189; refuses to 
negotiate informally, 190; in 
Slidell’s view an obstacle to 
the South, 195; refuses rec- 
ognition, 201; still opposed to 
recognition, 217;  Slidell’s 
béte noir, 224. 

Secret Service Fund, swelled by 
500 pounds, 221, 

Seward, William H., attracts 
a certain type of Whig, 96; 
nomination preferred to that 


INDEX 249 


of Lincoln, 170; diplomacy 
in Trent Affair, 182; suppos- 
ed agreement with Russel! on 
blockade, 191; reputed friend- 
ly to an armistice, 208. 


Slavery, its manifest destiny, 
82. 


Slidell, Alfred, correspondence 
with the author, 3; enters 
bond business in New York, 
233. 


Slidell, Jane, marries Lieuten- 
ant Matthew C. Perry, 5-6. 


Slidell, John, destroys biogra- 
phical material, 2; date of 
birth, 5; graduates from Co- 
lumbia College, 6; goes to 
New Orleans, 8; law prac- 
tice before Supreme Court of 
State, 9; seeks a seat in Con- 
gress, 10; U. S. District At- 
torney at New Orleans, 11; 
marries Mathilde Deslonde, 
13; disposition described by 
daughter, 14; fails of Senate 
but recovers standing with 
Van Buren, 15; political let- 
ter to Van Buren, 16-18; en- 
ters 28th Congress, 24; warns 
Van Buren against Abolition 
friends, 27; introduces reso- 
lution on judiciary, 28-29; is- 
terested in railroads, 29; tar- 
iff speech, 31-37; swings 
Louisiana for Polk, 1844, 37; 
natural choice for mission to 
Mexico, 38; countercharges 
in Placquemine frauds, 40; 
participates in attack on Gid- 
dings, 40-41; opposes calcu- 
lating Congressional mileage 
by direct mail route, 42; vote 
on anti-duelling resolution, 
42; favors new State of East 
Florida, 42; interest in the 
navy, 43; on new furniture 
for the White House, 43; 


favors direct election of Pres- 


ident, 44; welcomes mission 
to Mexico, 45; inherent ob- 
stacles to mission, 59; departs 
for Mexico, 60; quits Mexi- 
can capital, 62; prospect of 
successful mission, 65; mis- 
sion enters on auxiliary 
phase, 66; returns from Mex- 
ico, 70-71; seeks proof of 
Jackson’s approbation of 
Mackenzie, 75; willing to re- 
turn to Mexico, 75; plans 
to make Buchanan Presi- 
dent, 77; Slidell’s own ambi- 
tion is the Senate, 77-78; 
fails in 1848 to reach his 
goal, 79; refuses to cast 
Louisiana ballot, 1848, 80; 
complains of failure of Buch- 
anan to win Marcy, 88; op- 
poses fire-eaters, 89; grief at 
failure of Buchanan’s nomi- 
nation, 93-94; considers tem- 
perance legislation tyranny, 
95; mentioned for Pierce’s 


~cabinet, 96; controls Louis- 


jana against Soulé, 98; as- 
serts his claim to Louisiana 
patronage, 98; describes the 
nullity of Soulé, 99; offered 
mission to Central America, 
101; attains to seat in Senate, 
102; interested in the Kan- 
sas struggle, 103; interests as 
a senator, 104; advocaies a 
naval station at New Or- 
leans, 104; friendly to the 
navy, 104; opposes secrecy in 
the Senate, 105; agitates for 
Cuban acquisition, 108; hos- 
tile to Great Britain in re 
Cuba, 108; speech on Cuban 
annexation, 108-110; advises 
Pierce on Cuban policy, 111; 
defends State sovereignty, 
113; opposes alien ownership 
of land, 113; wants economy 
in mail service, 114; absolves 
Buchanan in Ostend fiasco, 


250 


115; returns to Senate, 115; 
opposes Pierce and Marcy, 
117; accuses Pierce of breach 
of faith, 118; fears breakup 
of the Union, 118; willing for 
Douglas to seek nomination, 
121; advises Buchanan on 
political tactics, 122; leader 
of the Buchanan forces, 123; 
opposes extending patents, 
125; attitude towards Sum- 
ner, 126-128; wishes abroga- 
tion of Anglo-American trea- 
ty of 1842, 128; views on in- 
ternal improvements, 129-131; 
a Union man in 1856, 136; 
disapproves the Clayton-Bul- 
wer Treaty, 138; promises to 
write Buchanan on appoint- 
ments, 139; views on leading 
politicians, 140; recommends 
Toucey to Buchanan, 141; 
controls Louisiana patronage, 
142; evens scores with Mar- 
cy, 143; opposes sending mis- 
sion to Persia, 143; upholds 
the Lecompton Constitution, 
144; speech on seizure of 
William Walker, 145-146; 
watch-dog of the Treasury, 
146; tilt with Douglas, 147; 
opposes national improve- 
ments, 148; underhand as- 
sault on Douglas’s reputa- 
tion, 149-152; is offered mis- 
sion to Paris, 152; recom- 
mends Benjamin to mission 
at Madrid, 152; introduces 
Cuban purchase bill, 152; 
presents petition of New 
Yorkers on public lands, 153; 
accused of pandering to Wall 
Street, 155; the nick-name 
“Houmas”, 156; patronage of 
rufhans asserted, 156; alleged 
propensity for gambling, 157; 
defended by Benjamin on 
“Houmas” charge, 157; will- 
ing to accept the Paris mis- 


INDEX 


sion, 158; blamed for fail- 
ure of Belmont to secure mis- 
sion at Madrid, 159; favors 
temporary street car fran- 
chise in Washington, 160- 
161; pictured by Murat Hal- 
stead, 162-164; disapproves 
of added bounties to naval 
officers for captured slavers, 
164; defense against the 
“Houmas” charges, 164-167; 
(foot-note) adept at machine 
politics, 167-168; less a power 
in 1860 than in 1856, 169; 
comments on Lincoln’s nomi- 
nation, 169-170; supports 
Breckinridge and Lane, 170- 
172; popularity with young 
men, 171; prospect of Seces- 
sion in Louisiana, 174; en- 
deavors to preserve commerce 
with the Upper Mississippi, 
175; denies accusing Buch- 
anan of imbecility, 175-176; 
questions President on Floyd’s 
dismissal, 176; protests remo- 
val of Commandant at West 
Point, 177; farewell to Sen- 
ate, 178; slow to approve 
Secession, 178-179; a heavy 
tax-payer (foot-note), 179; 
parts company with Buch- 
anan, 179-180; logical choice 
for a diplomatic post, 180; 
audience with M. Fould, 
188; hopes Napoleon may act 
alone, 192; pessimistic as to 
outcome of the mission, 194; 
forecasts the South’s appro- 
val of French plans in 
Mexico, 195; interview with 
Napoleon, Ta: 198-199 ; 
discouraged by Earl Rus- 
sell’s tactics, 200-201; mis- 
trusts Persigny’s over-san- 
guine temperament, 201; 
scorns to negotiate with Se- 
ward, 202; feels that 1862 is 
critical, 203; estimate of first 


INDEX 251 


year of the mission, 206-207; 
active in ship-building, 210; 
sound views upon finance, 
211; arrangements to vio- 
late British neutrality, 212- 
213; no confidence in British 
agent of the cotton loan, 213; 
audience with Napoleon III, 
215; unjustified anticipations, 
216; pride in family’s posi- 
tion in society, 218; attempts 
to ascertain Lord Palmer- 


ston’s intentions, 219-220; 
failure to interview Maxi- 
milian, 220-221; rumors of 


impending peace, 223-224; 
another interview with Na- 
poleon III, 224; grief at 
Lee’s surrender, 225-226: no 
comment on Lincoln’s assassi- 
nation, 226, 235; obliged to 
economize, 226-227; balance 
of his salary paid, 227; diffi- 
culties of post bellum situa- 
tion, 227-228; seeks permis- 
sion to visit New Orleans, 
229-230; advice to Confeder- 
ates in Europe, 230; unrecon- 


structed, 230-231; Paris his 
home, 231; visits Napoleon 
III in exile, 235; deep at- 


tachment for Napoleon III, 
236; pathetic letter to Ad- 
miral Rogers, 236-237; dies 
at Cowes, England, 1871, 237; 
author’s estimate of John 
Slidell, 238-239. 


Slidell, Mrs. John, (née Mathii- 
de Deslonde), her marriage, 
13; an artist, 14; gifts from 
Commodore Perry, 15; a 
Creole, 30; shares husband’s 
confidence as to Mexican 
mission, 53; a good wife, 117; 
attends receptions of Eu- 
génie, 218; likes Parisian 
life, 231; her death, 234; fol- 
lowed shortly by her hus- 
band’s, 236. 


Soule, 


Slidell, Julia, wife of Rear Ad- 
miral Raymond Rogers, 236. 


Slidell, Marie Rosine (Comtesse 


de St. Roman), acknowledg- 
ment of author’s obligations, 
4; describes her father’s dis- 
position, 14; describes her 
mother, 15; account of mu- 
tiny on the Somers and court- 
martial of Alexander Slidell 
Mackenzie, 20-22; family 
friendship for the French 


legation (foot-note), 152; 
French social life in the 
1860’s, 218; on post bellum 


prosperity of the family, 232; 
accompanies Slidell on visit 
to Imperial exiles, 235. 

Pierre, receives Slidell’s 
vote for senator, 1848, 79; 
disturbing factor in Louisiana 
politics, 84; supports Steph- 
en A. Douglas, 90; early 
leader in Secession, 97; less 
powerful in Louisiana than 
Slidell, 98; negligible in 
Louisiana politics, 99; goes 
to Spain as minister, 102; 
correspondence on the Os- 
tend Manifesto, 114; fails as 
minister to Spain, 117; hos- 
tility is not to be Siciee 
132; death grapple with Sli- 
dell for Louisiana, 155; at- 
tempts to organize a new par- 
ty, 157-158; no longer pow- 
erful in Louisiana, 173. 


Spain, seeks international agree- 


ment for Cuban guarantees, 
109; possibility of interven- 
tion in Mexico, 146. 


Spencer, Philip (Midshipman), 


pirate, protected by high na- 
val officers, 22. 


States’ Rights, sincerity of Sli- 


dell’s views, 112. 


Sumner, Charles, befriends the 


bother of Slidell, 22; assault 


252 INDEX 


is mentioned, 30; assault de- 
scribed, 125-128; (foot-note) 
attacks Slidell in the Atlan- 
tic Monthly, 180; acts to 
avert war after Trent affair, 
182; bitter attack on Slidell 
and Mason, 184-185. 

Tariff, speech by Slidell, 31-37. 

Tehuantepec, objective in a 
Slidell-Benjamin-Wall Street 
scheme, 155. 

Temperance Legislation, view- 
ed as tyranny, 95. 

Texas, duties on cotton imports, 


(ay 


Thouvenel, M., French foreign 
minister, 187; attitude toward 
Slidell, 192; not hostile, but 
not friendly, 193; discour- 
ages demand for recognition, 
200; admits the possibility of 
intervention, 204. 

Toombs, Robert, anticipates 
election of Buchanan, 1856, 
134. 

Trent Affair, narrative, 181- 
184; France supported Eng- 
land, 199, 

Trist, Nicholas P., (foot-note) 
attends to business matters 
for Slidell, 46; (foot-note) 
prevents seizure of all of 
northern Mexico, 64. 

Toucey, Isaac, recommended 
by Slidell, 141. 

Van Buren, Martin, mistrusts 
Slidell, 11; recovers confi- 
dence in Slidell, 15; pleased 


with Slidell’s Jackson speech, 
20; warned against New 
York associates, 27; termi- 
nation of Slidell alliance, 28. 

Queen Victoria, believed friend- 
ly toward the South, 206; 
views no longer of impor- 
tance, 222, 

Walker, Robert J., favors Tex- 
an annexation, 49; defends it 
against John Quincy Adams, 
51; not fully trusted by Sli- 
dell, 86; likes Buchanan, de- 
spises Benton, 133; opposed 
for State Department by nu- 
merous States; too danger- 
ous a man, 139-140; course 
in Kansas disapproved by 
South, 142. 

Walker, William, seizure dis- 
approved, 143; seizure legal 
but unfortunate, 146. 

Washington, D. C., permanent 
surrender of its streets op- 
posed, 160. 

Whig Party, moribund in 1852, 
95; “better elements” turn 
Democratic, 118, 

Wilkes, Captain Charles, action 
in the Trent Affair, 181-182. 

Wilmot Proviso, a factor in 
Louisiana politics, 79; in- 
sufficient provocation for rup- 
turing the Union, 83-84. 

Winthrop, Robert C., courte- 
ous to Slidell, a captive, 183. 

Yancey, William L., a danger- 
ous politician, 89. 





Says: ‘ ae ehince ESSER tees aes Sen ete Se a = 
ar SSE RSI BOVINA ernie anh 





uke University Libraries 


UU AI 











